CVE-2015-7426 in Tivoli Storage Manager for Virtual Environments
Summary
by MITRE
The Data Protection extension in the VMware GUI in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Virtual Environments: Data Protection for VMware (aka Spectrum Protect for Virtual Environments) 7.1 before 7.1.3.0 and Tivoli Storage FlashCopy Manager for VMware (aka Spectrum Protect Snapshot) 4.1 before 4.1.3.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via unspecified vectors.
If you want to get best quality of vulnerability data, you may have to visit VulDB.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 05/26/2018
The vulnerability identified as CVE-2015-7426 represents a critical remote command execution flaw within the VMware GUI components of IBM Tivoli Storage Manager solutions. This security weakness affects both the Data Protection extension for VMware and the FlashCopy Manager for VMware products, specifically impacting versions prior to 7.1.3.0 and 4.1.3.0 respectively. The vulnerability exists in the graphical user interface components that manage virtual environment data protection operations, creating an attack surface where remote adversaries can potentially compromise the underlying operating systems through maliciously crafted inputs or interactions with the GUI interface. The unspecified vectors suggest that the flaw may manifest through multiple attack pathways within the GUI communication mechanisms, potentially involving improper input validation, insufficient sanitization of user-supplied data, or insecure handling of API calls that interface with the underlying operating system.
The technical implementation of this vulnerability stems from inadequate security controls within the VMware GUI extension that processes user inputs and system commands. When administrators or authorized users interact with the graphical interface to configure backup operations, manage virtual machine snapshots, or perform other data protection tasks, the system fails to properly validate or sanitize inputs that could potentially contain malicious command sequences. This allows remote attackers to inject operating system commands that execute with the privileges of the application process, which typically runs with elevated permissions due to the nature of data protection operations. The vulnerability aligns with CWE-77 and CWE-94 categories, representing command injection flaws that enable arbitrary code execution, and falls under the ATT&CK technique T1059.001 for command and script interpreter, specifically targeting the execution of operating system commands through compromised interfaces.
The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple remote code execution, as it provides attackers with potential access to the complete data protection infrastructure and underlying virtual environments. An attacker who successfully exploits this vulnerability could gain unauthorized access to backup data, modify or delete critical storage operations, compromise virtual machine snapshots, and potentially escalate privileges to gain full administrative control over the storage management systems. The affected systems typically operate in enterprise environments where they manage critical data protection workflows, making the potential impact substantial. Organizations using these versions of Tivoli Storage Manager solutions face risks including data breaches, service disruption, compliance violations, and potential regulatory penalties due to the exposure of sensitive backup infrastructure. The vulnerability's remote nature means that attackers do not require physical access or local network presence to exploit the flaw, making it particularly dangerous in cloud or distributed storage environments.
Mitigation strategies for CVE-2015-7426 primarily focus on immediate version upgrades to the patched releases of IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Virtual Environments and Spectrum Protect Snapshot. Organizations should prioritize applying the security patches released by IBM to address the command injection vulnerabilities in the VMware GUI components. Network segmentation and access controls should be implemented to limit exposure of the affected GUI interfaces to trusted networks only, while monitoring systems should be deployed to detect unusual command execution patterns or unauthorized access attempts. Additional defensive measures include implementing network-based intrusion detection systems that can identify suspicious traffic patterns associated with command injection attempts, configuring strict input validation for all GUI interactions, and establishing robust audit trails for all administrative activities within the data protection infrastructure. The vulnerability serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining up-to-date security patches for enterprise storage management systems and highlights the critical need for proper input validation in GUI applications that interface with operating system functionality. Organizations should also consider implementing zero-trust network architectures and multi-factor authentication for administrative access to prevent exploitation even if network boundaries are compromised.