Summary
cemtan sar2html 4.0.0 contains a hard-coded credential issue involving the SECRET_KEY argument in sar2html.py. Because the affected functionality can be reached remotely, an attacker may be able to use the embedded credential or associated security material to gain unauthorized access, depending on how it is used by the deployment.
cemtan sar2html 4.0.0 contains a hard-coded credential issue involving the SECRET_KEY argument in sar2html.py. Because the affected functionality can be reached remotely, an attacker may be able to use the embedded credential or associated security material to gain unauthorized access, depending on how it is used by the deployment.
Affected context
The vulnerability occurs in sar2html 4.0.0, specifically within an unknown functionality of sar2html.py that handles the SECRET_KEY argument. Risk is present when the application exposes this functionality through a remotely reachable interface and relies on a fixed credential or secret that is shared, discoverable, or insufficiently protected.
The vulnerability occurs in sar2html 4.0.0, specifically within an unknown functionality of sar2html.py that handles the SECRET_KEY argument. Risk is present when the application exposes this functionality through a remotely reachable interface and relies on a fixed credential or secret that is shared, discoverable, or insufficiently protected.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: A remotely reachable sar2html application interface
- Required access: Network access to the exposed functionality; authentication requirements depend on deployment configuration
- Trigger point: Processing or use of the
SECRET_KEYargument bysar2html.py - Why exploitation is possible: A credential or security secret is embedded in application behavior rather than being uniquely provisioned and protected at runtime
- Attack surface: A remotely reachable sar2html application interface
- Required access: Network access to the exposed functionality; authentication requirements depend on deployment configuration
- Trigger point: Processing or use of the
SECRET_KEYargument bysar2html.py - Why exploitation is possible: A credential or security secret is embedded in application behavior rather than being uniquely provisioned and protected at runtime
Why this happens
The underlying flaw is the use of a hard-coded credential or secret in application functionality. Fixed secrets can be extracted from source code, binaries, packages, or observable application behavior and may be reused across deployments.
This maps primarily to CWE-259: Use of Hard-coded Password, with CWE-798: Use of Hard-coded Credentials also applicable. The insecure pattern reduces the trustworthiness of authentication or cryptographic key material by treating a static value as a protected secret.
The underlying flaw is the use of a hard-coded credential or secret in application functionality. Fixed secrets can be extracted from source code, binaries, packages, or observable application behavior and may be reused across deployments.
This maps primarily to CWE-259: Use of Hard-coded Password, with CWE-798: Use of Hard-coded Credentials also applicable. The insecure pattern reduces the trustworthiness of authentication or cryptographic key material by treating a static value as a protected secret.
Potential impact
- An attacker may gain unauthorized access to protected functionality
- Credentials or security tokens may be reused across installations
- Application data may be exposed, modified, or deleted
- Attackers could impersonate trusted application components
- The affected service may be used as a foothold for further compromise
- An attacker may gain unauthorized access to protected functionality
- Credentials or security tokens may be reused across installations
- Application data may be exposed, modified, or deleted
- Attackers could impersonate trusted application components
- The affected service may be used as a foothold for further compromise
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on removing fixed credentials from code and reducing trust in remotely supplied security parameters.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Generate unique secrets during deployment or provisioning
- Store credentials in a managed secret store or protected runtime configuration
- Avoid accepting security-critical secrets through publicly reachable request parameters
- Rotate potentially exposed credentials and invalidate obsolete values
- Apply authentication, authorization, and least-privilege controls around sensitive functionality
- Prevent secrets from appearing in source repositories, logs, error messages, or packaged artifacts
- Use secure-by-default configuration that fails closed when required secrets are missing or invalid
Mitigation generally focuses on removing fixed credentials from code and reducing trust in remotely supplied security parameters.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Generate unique secrets during deployment or provisioning
- Store credentials in a managed secret store or protected runtime configuration
- Avoid accepting security-critical secrets through publicly reachable request parameters
- Rotate potentially exposed credentials and invalidate obsolete values
- Apply authentication, authorization, and least-privilege controls around sensitive functionality
- Prevent secrets from appearing in source repositories, logs, error messages, or packaged artifacts
- Use secure-by-default configuration that fails closed when required secrets are missing or invalid
How teams detect issues like this
Organizations can look for this weakness through:
- Static analysis searches for credential literals, fixed keys, passwords, tokens, and secret-like constants
- Code review checks for
SECRET_KEYhandling and security-sensitive values passed through request arguments - Repository and package scans for high-entropy strings and known credential patterns
- Runtime monitoring for unusual access to authentication-sensitive endpoints
- Policy enforcement that blocks committed secrets and requires approved secret-management mechanisms
Automated security review tools can help identify hard-coded credentials, but findings should be validated against deployment configuration and actual secret usage.
Organizations can look for this weakness through:
- Static analysis searches for credential literals, fixed keys, passwords, tokens, and secret-like constants
- Code review checks for
SECRET_KEYhandling and security-sensitive values passed through request arguments - Repository and package scans for high-entropy strings and known credential patterns
- Runtime monitoring for unusual access to authentication-sensitive endpoints
- Policy enforcement that blocks committed secrets and requires approved secret-management mechanisms
Automated security review tools can help identify hard-coded credentials, but findings should be validated against deployment configuration and actual secret usage.
Sources
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| github. | github.com/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
