[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3460?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Christopher Tubbs resolved ACCUMULO-3460.
-----------------------------------------
       Resolution: Fixed
    Fix Version/s: 1.7.1
                   1.8.0
                   1.6.3

Okay, [~busbey], this should be fixed now.

> Monitor should not allow HTTP TRACE
> -----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-3460
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3460
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: monitor
>    Affects Versions: 1.5.0, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.6.0
>            Reporter: Sean Busbey
>            Assignee: Christopher Tubbs
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: security
>             Fix For: 1.6.3, 1.8.0, 1.7.1
>
>          Time Spent: 0.5h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> A Nessus scan pinged my test cluster because the Accumulo monitor allows HTTP 
> TRACE requests. (ref: [an overview of the general problem 
> class|http://www.cgisecurity.com/whitehat-mirror/WH-WhitePaper_XST_ebook.pdf])
> The issue isn't bad unless
> * there's a same-origin-policy bypass for the user browser
> * there's an auth token we care about
> Exploits the bypass the same-origin-policy happen, so it's best to clean up 
> server side if possible.
> The only auth tokens present in the Monitor are when we make use of the 
> ShellServlet from ACCUMULO-196. We rely on the session state for auth, so 
> there isn't a risk of leaking auth info directly, but we would leak the 
> session id. 
> The CSRF added in ACCUMULO-2785 means just the session id wouldn't be enough 
> for impersonation, but if an attacker can read one requested page we have to 
> presume they can read another.
> We should clean up our configs to disallow HTTP TRACE as a proactive measure.
> Marking minor since an attack vector would need an enabling vulnerability on 
> the client side.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to