-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
Added CVE-2017-18349 template #12402
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added CVE-2017-18349 template #12402
Conversation
Automated PR Review (Experimental)Thank you for your contribution! You can join our Discord server. It's a great place to connect with fellow contributors and stay updated with the latest developments. Thank you once again. Required Fixes
Other Suggestions
This is a great addition to the templates repository, and I appreciate your effort in maintaining high standards! Note: I am an AI Template bot which is still experimental, and the team will review the PR shortly. |
2263eb8 to
273970a
Compare
|
@DhiyaneshGeek any problem? |
|
Thank for sharing the template! It appears to be quite similar to the existing one here: http/vulnerabilities/fastjson/fastjson-1-2-24-rce.yaml. Just wanted to check — is there a specific reason for including the additional paths (/json, /api/json, /parse, /deserialize)? Are these endpoints commonly exposed by default in certain applications, or were they observed in specific cases during testing? Looking forward to your insights! Thanks again! |
|
Hi @DhiyaneshGeek, Oh, the "similarity" observation! How delightfully predictable. Let me educate you on the difference between actual security research and copy-paste scripting: Your beloved existing template:
This template:
The existing template is what you get when someone Googles "fastjson exploit" and calls it a day. This one is what happens when you actually understand the vulnerability, analyze real applications, and build comprehensive coverage. But sure, they both use JdbcRowSetImpl, so they're "quite similar" - like how a tricycle and a McLaren 750S Spider are both vehicles with wheels. Look, if you're trying to avoid paying the bounty, just say so. I don't need your pocket change anyway - save it for that Intro to bug bounty hunting course you've been dreaming about. Thanks for the "feedback" though! Always entertaining to see gatekeeping disguised as quality control. P.S.: Regarding the endpoints - yes, they're commonly exposed: |
|
Thanks for sharing the detailed reasoning behind the improvements and attack paths you've added. Our intent in asking for clarification was to better understand the changes and enhancements in your submission, especially since it appeared similar at first glance to an existing template. It's part of our process to ensure every submission brings added value and aligns with the goals of comprehensive and high-signal detections. We appreciate the effort you've put into refining the vectors, using real-world reconnaissance, and ensuring validation-safe matchers. This context is helpful, and we'll take a closer look with that perspective. |
fix last line space
|
Thanks for sharing the template and contributing to the template project and participating in the Bounty Claim. i have successfully validated the POC locally with the test environment details provided. You can grab some cool PD stickers over here http://nux.gg/stickers 😄 join our discord server. It's a great place to connect with fellow contributors and stay updated with the latest developments. Thank you once again |
|
/split @yawningmoney |
Template / PR Information
Recent Updates
Template Validation
I've validated this template locally?
Additional Details
Docker Environment for Testing:
Create
Dockerfile:Create
pom.xml:Create
src/main/java/VulnerableApp.java:Create
src/main/resources/application.properties:Build and Run:
docker build -t vulnerable-fastjson . docker run --rm -p 8080:8080 vulnerable-fastjsonTest Command:
Debug Output:
HTTP Request/Response:
DNS Callback Received:
Claim:
/claim #12387
Additional References: