Tag Archives: FSTEC

About Remote Code Execution - TrueConf Server (CVE-2026-72529, CVE-2026-72530) vulnerability

About Remote Code Execution - TrueConf Server (CVE-2026-72529, CVE-2026-72530) vulnerability

About Remote Code Execution - TrueConf Server (CVE-2026-72529, CVE-2026-72530) vulnerability. TrueConf Server is a Russian on-premises corporate messaging and UltraHD video conferencing platform. The attack chain consists of two critical vulnerabilities. The first vulnerability, CVE-2026-72529, is caused by missing authentication for a critical function (CWE-306) and allows an unauthenticated remote attacker with network access to TCP port 4307 (open by default, according to TrueConf documentation) to invoke an undocumented TrueConf Server function and execute an arbitrary script within an isolated environment ("sandbox") where potentially dangerous libraries are unavailable. The second vulnerability, CVE-2026-72530, allows an attacker to perform code injection (CWE-94), escape the isolated environment, and execute arbitrary code on the host operating system with the highest privileges. Among other things, an attacker can delete TrueConf event log entries associated with exploitation activity.

⚙️ Security fixes for these vulnerabilities were released on June 18, 2026. The affected versions are 5.3.x below 5.3.9, 5.4.x below 5.4.9, 5.5.x below 5.5.5, as well as the 5.2 branch and earlier versions (upgrading legacy versions requires contacting technical support). Re-registration of the server is not required when upgrading within the 5.3-5.5 branches. However, the vendor strongly recommends creating a backup before installing the update. If an immediate upgrade is not possible, access to TCP port 4307 should be restricted to trusted networks.

👾 Kaspersky ICS CERT experts have disclosed details of the vulnerability exploitation chain in a post published on August 12. Since July 2026, threat actors have been exploiting CVE-2026-72529 and CVE-2026-72530 in attacks targeting Russian organizations. The attackers first gained network access to TrueConf Server through TCP port 4307 and used CVE-2026-72529 to execute a script within the sandbox. They then exploited CVE-2026-72530 to escape the sandbox and execute code with NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM privileges. This enabled them to replace one of the TrueConf Server files with a web shell of their own. The attackers then used the web shell to gather information about the organization's IT infrastructure, gain privileged access to the TrueConf Server database, and replace legitimate TrueConf Client installers with malicious versions containing the PhantomCore malware. Users were subsequently prompted to download what appeared to be a new version of the TrueConf Client, which was in fact malicious.

IMPORTANT: Even if your organization does not use TrueConf, your employees may have connected to compromised TrueConf servers used by contractors or business partners to participate in online conferences. In doing so, they may have inadvertently installed a malicious version of the TrueConf client on their workstations.

The PhantomCore malware, associated with the Head Mare APT group, launches automatically when the system starts and allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands, effectively giving them full control over the compromised host. Kaspersky researchers also identified a new backdoor used in the attacks, which they named PhantomGraph. Both vulnerabilities, CVE-2026-72529 and CVE-2026-72530, were added to the CISA KEV on August 20, 2026.

🛠 A public exploit for CVE-2026-72530 was published on GitHub on August 26. So far, no public exploit for the complete CVE-2026-72529/CVE-2026-72530 exploitation chain has been observed, despite the corresponding flags in the BDU FSTEC vulnerability database.

🌐 TrueConf Server is widely used both in Russia and internationally, including by government agencies, as well as organizations in the financial, industrial, healthcare, and education sectors.

I generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch Wednesday

I generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch Wednesday
I generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch WednesdayI generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch WednesdayI generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch WednesdayI generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch WednesdayI generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch WednesdayI generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch Wednesday

I generated a Vulristics report on the April Linux Patch Wednesday. Over the past month, Linux vendors have begun releasing patches for a record number of vulnerabilities - 348. There are signs of exploitation in the wild for 7 vulnerabilities (data on incidents from the FSTEC BDU). Another 165 have a link to an exploit or a sign of the existence of a public/private exploit.

Let's start with 7 vulnerabilities with signs of exploitation in the wild and exploits:

🔻 The trending January vulnerability Authentication Bypass - Jenkins (CVE-2024-23897) unexpectedly appeared in the TOP. As far as I understand, Linux distributions usually do not include Jenkins packages in the official repositories and, accordingly, do not add Jenkins vulnerability detection rules to their OVAL content. Unlike the Russian Linux distribution RedOS. Therefore, RedOS has the earliest fix timestamp for this vulnerability.

🔻 2 RCE vulnerabilities. The most interesting of them is Remote Code Execution - Exim (CVE-2023-42118). When generating the report, I deliberately did not take into account the vulnerability description and product names from the BDU database (flags --bdu-use-product-names-flag, --bdu-use-vulnerability-descriptions-flag set to False). Otherwise, the report would be partly in English and partly in Russian. But it turned out that so far only BDU has an adequate description of this vulnerability. 🤷‍♂️ You need to take a closer look at this vulnerability because Exim is a fairly popular mail server. The second RCE vulnerability is in the web browser, Remote Code Execution - Safari (CVE-2023-42950).

🔻2 DoS vulnerabilities. Denial of Service - nghttp2/Apache HTTP Server (CVE-2024-27316) and Denial of Service - Apache Traffic Server (CVE-2024-31309). The second is classified in the report as Security Feature Bypass, but this is due to incorrect CWE in NVD (CWE-20 - Improper Input Validation)

🔻 2 browser vulnerabilities Security Feature Bypass - Chromium (CVE-2024-2628, CVE-2024-2630)

Among the vulnerabilities for which there are only signs of the existence of exploits so far, you can pay attention to the following:

🔸 A large number of RCE vulnerabilities (71). Most of them are in the gtkwave product. This is a viewer for VCD (Value Change Dump) files, which are typically created by digital circuit simulators. Also, the Remote Code Execution - Cacti (CVE-2023-49084, CVE-2023-49085) vulnerabilities look dangerous. Cacti is a solution for monitoring servers and network devices.

🔸 Security Feature Bypass - Sendmail (CVE-2023-51765). Allows an attacker to inject email messages with a spoofed MAIL FROM address.

🔸 A pack of Cross Site Scripting vulnerabilities in MediaWiki, Cacti, Grafana, Nextcloud.

There is a lot to explore this time. 🤩

🗒 April Linux Patch Wednesday

На русском

September 2023: VM courses, Bahasa Indonesia, Russian Podcasts, Goodbye Tinkoff, MS Patch Tuesday, Qualys TOP 20, Linux, Forrester, GigaOm, R-Vision VM

September 2023: VM courses, Bahasa Indonesia, Russian Podcasts, Goodbye Tinkoff, MS Patch Tuesday, Qualys TOP 20, Linux, Forrester, GigaOm, R-Vision VM. Hello everyone! On the last day of September, I decided to record another retrospective episode on how my Vulnerability Management month went.

Alternative video link (for Russia): https://vk.com/video-149273431_456239136

September was quite a busy month for me.

Continue reading

Is it possible to detect Zero Day vulnerabilities with Vulnerability Management solutions?

Is it possible to detect Zero Day vulnerabilities with Vulnerability Management solutions? Hello everyone! In my English-language telegram chat avleonovchat, the question was asked: “How to find zero day vulnerabilities with Qualys?” Apparently this question can be expanded. Not just with Qualys, but with any VM solution in general. And is it even possible? There was an interesting discussion.

Alternative video link (for Russia): https://vk.com/video-149273431_456239109

Image generated by Stable Diffusion 2.1: “calendar on the wall cyber security vulnerability zero day”

The question is not so straightforward. To answer it, we need to define what a Zero Day vulnerability is. If we look at wikipedia, then historically “0” is the number of days a vendor has to fix a vulnerability.

“Eventually the term was applied to the vulnerabilities that allowed this hacking, and to the number of days that the vendor has had to fix them.”

Continue reading

Vulnerability Databases: Classification and Registry

Vulnerability Databases: Classification and Registry. What publicly available Vulnerability Databases do we have? Well, I can only say that there are a lot of them and they are pretty different. Here I make an attempt to classify them.

It’s quite an ungrateful task. No matter how hard you try, the final result will be rather inaccurate and incomplete. I am sure someone will be complaining. But this is how I see it. 😉 If you want to add or change something feel free to make a comment bellow or email me@avleonov.com.

The main classifier, which I came up with:

  • There are individual vulnerability databases in which one identifier means one vulnerability. They try to cover all existing vulnerabilities.
  • And others are security bulletins. They cover vulnerabilities in a particular product or products. And they usually based on on patches. One patch may cover multiple vulnerabilities.

I made this diagram with some Vulnerability Databases. Note that I wanted to stay focused, so there are no exploit DBs, CERTs, lists of vulnerabilities detected by some researchers (CISCO Talos, PT Research, etc.), Media and Bug Bounty sites.

Vulnerability Databases classification

For these databases the descriptions of vulnerabilities are publicly available on the site (in html interface or downloadable data feed), or exist in a form of paid Vulnerability Intelligence service (for example, Flexera).

On one side there are databases of individual vulnerabilities, the most important is National Vulnerability Database. There are also Chinese, Japanese bases that can be derived from NVD or not.

On the other side we have security bulletins, for example RedHat Security Advisories.

And in the middle we have a Vulnerability Databases, for which it is not critical whether they have duplicated vulnerability IDs or not.

Continue reading