Tag Archives: High-Tech Bridge

Free High-Tech Bridge ImmuniWeb Application Discovery service

1 Reply

Free High-Tech Bridge ImmuniWeb Application Discovery service. Today I would like to talk about another service for application security analysis by High-Tech Bridge. It’s called ImmuniWeb Application Discovery.

This service can get information about your web and mobile applications available from the Internet. Believe me, this is not so obvious for a large organization. And, what is especially pleasant, it works automatically and free of charge. 😉

High-Tech Bridge ImmuniWeb Free Application Discovery

ImmuniWeb Application Discovery will also show the basic security problems with SSL connection, web-server headers, potential phishing issues for all founded web services. You can read more about this part in my posts about High-Tech Bridge services and APIs for SSL/TLS server testing and for searching cybersquatting, typosquatting and phishing domains.

From the same interface you can order an advanced audit of your web applications by High-Tech Bridge as well.

Continue reading →

A few words about Gartner’s “Magic Quadrant for Application Security Testing” 2018

Leave a reply

A few words about Gartner’s “Magic Quadrant for Application Security Testing” 2018. February and March are the hot months for marketing reports. I already wrote about IDC and Forrester reports about Vulnerability Management-related markets. And this Monday, March 19, Gartner released new “Magic Quadrant for Application Security Testing”. You can buy it on the official website for $ 1,995.00 USD or download it for free from the vendor’s sites. For example, Synopsys or Positive Technologies. Thank you, dear vendors, for this opportunity!

I’m not an expert in Application Security. I am more in Device Vulnerability Assessment (IDC term) or Vulnerability Management. However, these field are related. And well-known Vulnerability Management vendors often have products or functionality for Web Application scanning and Source Code analysis as well. Just see Qualys, Rapid7 and Positive Technologies at the picture!

Gartner AST MQ 2018

I have already mentioned in previous posts that grouping products in marketing niches is rather mysterious process for me. For example, Gartner AST niche is for SAST, DAST and IAST products:

  • SAST is for source code or binary analysis
  • DAST is basically a black box scanning of deployed applications. it can be also called WAS (Web Application Scanning)
  • IAST is a kind of analysis that requires agent in the test runtime environment. Imho, this thing is still a pretty exotic.

As you can see, these are very different areas. But, the market is the same – AST.

Continue reading →

Vulnerability Management for Network Perimeter

11 Replies

Vulnerability Management for Network Perimeter. Network Perimeter is like a door to your organization. It is accessible to everyone and vulnerability exploitation does not require any human interactions, unlike, for example, phishing attacks. Potential attacker can automate most of his actions searching for an easy target. It’s important not to be such of target. 😉

Vulnerability Management for Network Perimeter

What does it mean to control the network perimeter? Well, practically this process consist of two main parts:

  • Assessing network hosts that are facing Internet using some Network Scanner (Nessus, OpenVAS, Qualys, MaxPatrol. F-Secure Radar, etc.)
  • Assessing application servers, e.g. Web Servers, on these hosts using some special tools, e.g. Web Application Scanners (Acunetix, Burp Suite, Qualys WAS, Tenable.io WAS, High-Tech Bridge ImmuniWeb, etc.)

Active scanning is a good method of perimeter assessment. Dynamics of the assets is relatively low, comparing with the Office Network. Perimeter hosts usually stays active all the time, including the time when you are going to scan scanning them. 😉

Most of the dangerous vulnerabilities can be detected without authorization: problems with encryption (OpenSSL Heartbleed, Poodle, etc.). RCE and DoS of web servers and frameworks (Apache Struts and Equifax case)

The best results can be achieved with scanners deployed outside of your network. Thus, you will see your Network Perimeter the same way a potential attacker sees it. But certainly, you will be in a better position:

  • You can ask your IT administrators to add your network and WAS scanners in white list, so they will not be banned.
  • You can check and correlate scan results of remote scanner with (authenticated?) scan results produced by the scanner deployed in your organization’s network and thus filtering false positives.

What about the targets for scanning? How should you get them?

Continue reading →

Dealing with cybersquatting, typosquatting and phishing

1 Reply

Dealing with cybersquatting, typosquatting and phishing. It won’t be a secret to say that phishing remains one of the most effective attack vectors.

For example, your colleague receives by email a malicious web link that looks like a link to your corporate portal and opens it. If your Vulnerability and Patch Management programs are not good enough (see “WannaCry about Vulnerability Management“) and the software on his desktop has some critical and exploitable vulnerabilities in web browser, PDF reader, Microsoft Office, etc., you will probably get compromised host in your network.

This is also a pain for your customers. If someone will be sending messages on behalf of your organization, this can easily lead to fraud and costs in public image. And it will be even harder to detect. You will know about it only if they tell you. And if the attack was not massive, the probability of this is not very high.

High-Tech Bridge Trademark Abuse Radar summary

What can we do about this?

  • We should definitely raise the awareness among co-workers and clients. They should know that such attacks may occur and carefully check the domain before any click. Especially if the letter seems suspicious.
  • On the other hand, we can also act proactively. Find which domains are similar enough to company brand and can be potentially used for phishing or other types of fraud. Then work with owners or registrars of such domains directly.

However, tracking down potentially malicious domains is not an easy task. Where should we take the lists of  all registered domains? What does “similar enough” really mean? Fortunately, there are services that greatly facilitate this task.

And today I would like to write you about a new free service by High-Tech Bridge – Trademark Abuse Radar. BTW, I already wrote earlier about their cool free service and API for SSL/TLS server testing, you can also check this out 😉

Everything is simple. Just enter the domain name you are interested in and in a few minutes you will receive a full report. No authorization for analysis is required, because the report is built on external and open data.

High-Tech Bridge Trademark Abuse Radar input

I chose the Citibank (citibank.com) as one of the most famous banking brand in the world. Let’s see what Trademark Abuse Radar will find.

Continue reading →

Use multiple vulnerability scanners in the name of good

2 Replies

Use multiple vulnerability scanners in the name of good. About a month ago I wrote a post “When a free scanning service detects vulnerabilities better”. This post was about OpenSSL CVE-2016-2107 vulnerability. A free High-Tech Bridge scanning service was detecting this vulnerability, but commercial Tenable Nessus/SecurityCenter not.

We communicated with a Tenable customer support and it brought some results. Now you can find a new plugin #91572 “OpenSSL AES-NI Padding Oracle MitM Information Disclosure” in Nessus plugin search (by CVE id CVE-2016-2107).

New CVE-2016-2107 Nessus plugin

I have tested a vulnerable server with High-Tech Bridge service:

HTBridge detects vulnerability

Then scanned it with Nessus. Note, that you can select only one plugin “General -> 91572” in your Nessus scan policy to speed up the scanning. This plugin does not have any dependencies.

Nessus detects vulnerability

As you can see, now the Nessus detects this vulnerability correctly.

The screenshot shows that it took more than a month, but after all this detection plugin was realized. And I hope my support tickets also played some role.

Nessus plugin

Therefore, I recommend, if it is possible, to validate your vulnerability scan results with additional scanners/services and REPORT your vendor the differences. It will help to achieve a better security level for your infrastructure and will make the your vendor’s products better.

When a free scanning service detects vulnerabilities better

4 Replies

When a free scanning service detects vulnerabilities better. We all want to have a reliable and efficient Vulnerability Scanner. This scanner should be able to find any vulnerabilities immediately, as soon as the information about them is published. And, to be honest, no one wants to research how the scanner do it. Really. It’s not our job. We purchased the product, we trust the vendor and if this product does not work as we would like, it is a vendor’s problem. Is that right?

Not really. If we do not properly recognize the condition of our infrastructure and do not properly assess the risks, because of this vendor’s faults, this would be our problem. It’s relatively easily to find out that some detected vulnerabilities from scanning report are false positives, what if scanner didn’t find an existing vulnerability? How would you even know this happened?

That’s why we still have to understand how the scanners work, to watch the watcher.

A recent example. CVE-2016-2107: OpenSSL AES CBC cipher information disclosure.

upd. For this vulnerability Tenable released addition detection plugin: “Use multiple vulnerability scanners in the name of good”.

HT Bridge detects CVE-2016-2107 vulnerability, Nessus not

This vulnerability may be detected by free vulnerability scanning services and practically could not detected by Nessus via unauthenticated scanning. You can see on the screenshots how we have scanned the same host with Nessus and free service by High-Tech Bridge. And Nessus did not detect CVE-2016-2107.

Continue reading →

High-Tech Bridge service and API for SSL/TLS server testing

7 Replies

High-Tech Bridge service and API for SSL/TLS server testing. Another great free SSL security testing service — High-Tech Bridge SSL Server Test (and Free API). I have already reviewed something quite familiar – Qualys SSL Labs client. So naturally there will be an element of comparison.

High-Tech Bridge SSL/TLS test request

Why have I tried something else after Qualys SSL Labs? The thing is Qualys doesn’t support IP addresses as a target. Maybe they don’t want it to be used for assessing full IP-ranges. I don’t know. But the fact is “IP addresses are not allowed”.

Continue reading →