Apache 2.4.x < 2.4.16 Multiple Vulnerabilities

high Web App Scanning Plugin ID 98908

Language:

Synopsis

Description

According to its banner, the version of Apache 2.4.x installed on the remote host is prior to 2.4.16. It is, therefore, affected by the following vulnerabilities :

- A flaw exists in the lua_websocket_read() function in the 'mod_lua' module due to incorrect handling of WebSocket PING frames. A remote attacker can exploit this, by sending a crafted WebSocket PING frame after a Lua script has called the wsupgrade() function, to crash a child process, resulting in a denial of service condition. (CVE-2015-0228)

- A NULL pointer dereference flaw exists in the read_request_line() function due to a failure to initialize the protocol structure member. A remote attacker can exploit this flaw, on installations that enable the INCLUDES filter and has an ErrorDocument 400 directive specifying a local URI, by sending a request that lacks a method, to cause a denial of service condition. (CVE-2015-0253)

- A flaw exists in the chunked transfer coding implementation due to a failure to properly parse chunk headers. A remote attacker can exploit this to conduct HTTP request smuggling attacks. (CVE-2015-3183)

- A flaw exists in the ap_some_auth_required() function due to a failure to consider that a Require directive may be associated with an authorization setting rather than an authentication setting. A remote attacker can exploit this, if a module that relies on the 2.2 API behavior exists, to bypass intended access restrictions. (CVE-2015-3185)

- A flaw exists in the RC4 algorithm due to an initial double-byte bias in the keystream generation. An attacker can exploit this, via Bayesian analysis that combines an a priori plaintext distribution with keystream distribution statistics, to conduct a plaintext recovery of the ciphertext. Note that RC4 cipher suites are prohibited per RFC 7465. This issue was fixed in Apache version 2.4.13; however, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, and 2.4.15 were never publicly released.

Note that the scanner has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.