Tag Archives: Linux

May Linux Patch Wednesday

May Linux Patch Wednesday
May Linux Patch WednesdayMay Linux Patch WednesdayMay Linux Patch WednesdayMay Linux Patch WednesdayMay Linux Patch Wednesday

May Linux Patch Wednesday. Last month, we jointly decided that it was worth introducing a rule for Unknown dates starting from May 2024. Which, in fact, is what I implemented. Now, if I see an oval definition that does not have a publication date (date when patches for related vulnerabilities were available), then I nominally assign today’s date. Thus, 32406 oval definitions without a date received a nominal date of 2024-05-15. One would expect that we would get a huge peak for vulnerabilities that “started being patched in May” based on the nominal date. How did it really turn out?

In fact, the peak was not very large. There are 424 CVEs in the May Linux Patch Wednesday. While in April there were 348. It’s comparable. Apparently the not very large peak is due to the fact that most of the vulnerabilities had patch dates older than the nominal one set (2024-05-15). And this is good. 🙂 It should get even better in June.

As usual, I generated a Vulristics report for the May vulnerabilities. Most of the vulnerabilities (282) relate to the Linux Kernel. This is due to the fact that Linux Kernel is now a CNA and they can issue CVEs for all sorts of things like bugs with huge traces right in the vulnerability descriptions.

The vulnerability from CISA KEV comes first.

🔻Path Traversal – Openfire (CVE-2023-32315). This is the August 2023 trending vulnerability. It was included in the report due to a fix in RedOS 2024-05-03. Has it not been fixed in other Linux distributions? It looks like this. In Vulners, among the related security objects, we can only see the RedOS bulletin. Apparently there are no Openfire packages in the repositories of other Linux distributions.

In second place is a vulnerability with a sign of active exploitation according to AttackerKB.

🔻 Path Traversal – aiohttp (CVE-2024-23334). The bug allows unauthenticated attackers to access files on vulnerable servers.

According to data from the FSTEC BDU, another 16 vulnerabilities have signs of active exploitation in the wild.

🔻 Memory Corruption – nghttp2 (CVE-2024-27983)
🔻 Memory Corruption – Chromium (CVE-2024-3832, CVE-2024-3833, CVE-2024-3834, CVE-2024-4671)
🔻 Memory Corruption – FreeRDP (CVE-2024-32041, CVE-2024-32458, CVE-2024-32459, CVE-2024-32460)
🔻 Memory Corruption – Mozilla Firefox (CVE-2024-3855, CVE-2024-3856)
🔻 Security Feature Bypass – bluetooth_core_specification (CVE-2023-24023)
🔻 Security Feature Bypass – Chromium (CVE-2024-3838)
🔻 Denial of Service – HTTP/2 (CVE-2023-45288)
🔻 Denial of Service – nghttp2 (CVE-2024-28182)
🔻 Incorrect Calculation – FreeRDP (CVE-2024-32040)

Another 22 vulnerabilities have an exploit (public or private), but so far there are no signs of active exploitation in the wild. I won’t list them all here, but you can pay attention to:

🔸 Security Feature Bypass – putty (CVE-2024-31497). A high-profile vulnerability that allows an attacker to recover a user’s private key.
🔸 Remote Code Execution – GNU C Library (CVE-2014-9984)
🔸 Remote Code Execution – Flatpak (CVE-2024-32462)
🔸 Command Injection – aiohttp (CVE-2024-23829)
🔸 Security Feature Bypass – FreeIPA (CVE-2024-1481)

I think that to improve the Vulristics report, it makes sense to separately group vulnerabilities with public exploits and private exploits, since this still greatly affects the criticality. Put 🐳 if you would like to see this feature.

🗒 Vulristics report on the May Linux Patch Wednesday

На русском

Detection of known (CVE) vulnerabilities without authentication (in Pentest mode): overkill or necessity? There is an opinion that when detecting vulnerabilities in internal infrastructure, scanning without authentication is not necessary at all

Detection of known (CVE) vulnerabilities without authentication (in Pentest mode): overkill or necessity? There is an opinion that when detecting vulnerabilities in internal infrastructure, scanning without authentication is not necessary at all

Detection of known (CVE) vulnerabilities without authentication (in Pentest mode): overkill or necessity? There is an opinion that when detecting vulnerabilities in internal infrastructure, scanning without authentication is not necessary at all. That it is enough to install agents on the hosts. And those hosts where agents cannot be installed, for example network devices, just need to be scanned with authentication. They say scans without authentication are always less reliable than scans with authentication, and they are needed only for perimeter scanning or primary network inventory. In my opinion, this is not completely correct. Scanning without authentication for known vulnerabilities is mandatory, especially when the target is a host running a web application.

And this is due to the peculiarities of detecting vulnerabilities during scanning with authentication. Let’s take Linux hosts. Typically, VM vendors when scanning Linux hosts with authentication, limit themselves to detecting vulnerabilities in packages from the official Linux vendor repository. 🤷‍♂️ Simply because these vulnerabilities are described in publicly available security bulletins or even as formalized OVAL content. It’s convenient. If you have learned to work with such content, you can check the box that the Linux distribution is supported by the VM solution. What about vulnerabilities for software that is not in the official Linux vendor repository? This is where things get more complicated.

This software can be installed:

🔹 From a connected third-party Linux software repository
🔹 From a package (made by some vendor or selfbuilt) of the standard package system for this Linux distro (deb, rpm), brought to the host manually
🔹 From alternative packages for software distribution (snap, flatpak, appimage, etc.)
🔹 From module distribution tools (pip, conda, npm, etc.)
🔹 From a container image (docker, podman, etc.)
🔹 From software source codes; the software can be built directly on the target host or can be transferred there as binary files.

Ideally, no matter how the software is installed on a host, a vulnerability scanner should correctly detect that software installation, determine the version, and identify associated vulnerabilities based on the version. 🧙‍♂️ But in practice, due to the fact that there are many ways to install software, this is a very non-trivial task. 🧐

As a result, we get a situation: let’s say we have some kind of commercial or open source software on a Linux host (Zabbix, GitLab, Confluence, Jira). This software is not easy to reliably find simply by exploring the host from the inside via SSH. And when looking at the host from the outside, searching for this software is trivial: we scan the ports, find the web-GUI, often find the version directly on the main page and use it to detect vulnerabilities. At the same time, we are not at all dependent on the specific method of installing and running the software on the host. The main thing is that we see the web interface of the application itself. 🤩

Such “external” rules for detecting vulnerabilities are much easier to develop. You can also use ready-made expertise. Fingerprinting to obtain a CPE ID combined with a CPE lookup in NVD is, of course, a dirty path. But this allows you to add vulnerability detection rules in large quantities. 😏 And if you can tweak both the fingerprint and the CPE detection rules, then the number of errors can be reduced to an acceptable level. And if you also add validation of vulnerabilities with an exploitation attempt (for example, using nuclei), then a significant set of vulnerabilities can be detected more than reliably. 😉

So, scanning for known vulnerabilities without authentication (“pentest”) is a must have for internal infrastructure as well, especially for hosts with web applications.

На русском

For the January Elevation of Privilege (Local Privilege Escalation) – Linux Kernel (CVE-2024-1086), the write-up and PoC were released on March 26

For the January Elevation of Privilege (Local Privilege Escalation) - Linux Kernel (CVE-2024-1086), the write-up and PoC were released on March 26
For the January Elevation of Privilege (Local Privilege Escalation) - Linux Kernel (CVE-2024-1086), the write-up and PoC were released on March 26

For the January Elevation of Privilege (Local Privilege Escalation) – Linux Kernel (CVE-2024-1086), the write-up and PoC were released on March 26. The video demo for the script looks impressive: they run the script as a regular user and after a couple of seconds they get a root shell. According to the author, the exploit works with most Linux kernels between versions 5.14 and 6.6, including Debian, Ubuntu and KernelCTF.

🔻 The exploit requires kconfig CONFIG_USER_NS=y; sh command sysctl kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone = 1; kconfig CONFIG_NF_TABLES=y. The author writes that this is the default for Debian, Ubuntu, and KernelCTF, and for other distributions it is necessary to test it.
🔹 The exploit does not work with kernels v6.4> with kconfig CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON=y (including Ubuntu v6.5)

NSFOCUS writes that Redhat is also vulnerable. 🤷‍♂️

На русском

February 2024: Vulremi, Vuldetta, PT VM Course relaunch, PT TrendVulns digests, Ivanti, Fortinet, MSPT, Linux PW

February 2024: Vulremi, Vuldetta, PT VM Course relaunch, PT TrendVulns digests, Ivanti, Fortinet, MSPT, Linux PW. Hello everyone! In this episode, I will talk about the February updates of my open source projects, also about projects at my main job at Positive Technologies and interesting vulnerabilities.

Alternative video link (for Russia): https://vk.com/video-149273431_456239140

Let’s start with my open source projects.

Continue reading

November 2023 – January 2024: New Vulristics Features, 3 Months of Microsoft Patch Tuesdays and Linux Patch Wednesdays, Year 2023 in Review

November 2023 – January 2024: New Vulristics Features, 3 Months of Microsoft Patch Tuesdays and Linux Patch Wednesdays, Year 2023 in Review. Hello everyone! It has been 3 months since the last episode. I spent most of this time improving my Vulristics project. So in this episode, let’s take a look at what’s been done.

Alternative video link (for Russia): https://vk.com/video-149273431_456239139

Also, let’s take a look at the Microsoft Patch Tuesdays vulnerabilities, Linux Patch Wednesdays vulnerabilities and some other interesting vulnerabilities that have been released or updated in the last 3 months. Finally, I’d like to end this episode with a reflection on how my 2023 went and what I’d like to do in 2024.

Continue reading

October 2023: back to Positive Technologies, Vulristics updates, Linux Patch Wednesday, Microsoft Patch Tuesday, PhysTech VM lecture

October 2023: back to Positive Technologies, Vulristics updates, Linux Patch Wednesday, Microsoft Patch Tuesday, PhysTech VM lecture. Hello everyone! October was an interesting and busy month for me. I started a new job, worked on my open source Vulristics project, and analyzed vulnerabilities using it. Especially Linux vulnerabilities as part of my new Linux Patch Wednesday project. And, of course, analyzed Microsoft Patch Tuesday as well. In addition, at the end of October I was a guest lecturer at MIPT/PhysTech university. But first thing first.

Alternative video link (for Russia): https://vk.com/video-149273431_456239138

Continue reading

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