Tag Archives: NVD

On November 13, NIST NVD finally admitted the obvious: they had failed to process the CVE analysis backlog before the end of the fiscal year (September 30)

On November 13, NIST NVD finally admitted the obvious: they had failed to process the CVE analysis backlog before the end of the fiscal year (September 30)

On November 13, NIST NVD finally admitted the obvious: they had failed to process the CVE analysis backlog before the end of the fiscal year (September 30). This is actually visible in their own statistics. At the moment, there are 19860 identifiers in the backlog. This week, 1136 new CVEs were received, and they analyzed only 510. And this is not some abnormal week, this happens regularly. They can’t cope with analyzing new vulnerabilities, they don’t have time to deal with the backlog. The crisis continues.

At the same time, for some reason, they write in the message that they have a full team of analysts, and they are addressing all incoming CVEs as they are uploaded into NVD system. But why do their statistics show the opposite?

They write that they processed all the vulnerabilities from CISA KEV. And that’s good. But CISA KEV only added 162 CVEs in 2024. It’s great that NVD was able to process these identifiers, but the achievement is, to put it mildly, not impressive.

Why can’t NVD process this backlog?

They write that the problem is in the format of data from Authorized Data Providers (ADPs), apparently meaning CISA Vulnrichment. NVD is currently unable to effectively import and enhance data in this format. In order to be able to do this, they are developing some “new systems”.

Not only have they admitted their inability to analyze vulnerabilities on their own and their willingness to use the results of someone else’s analysis as is, they also cannot write parser-converters in any adequate time. 🐾 I have no words. 🤦‍♂️

And now there is news that US Senator Rand Paul, the new chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, has promised to seriously reduce the powers of CISA or eliminate them completely. 😁 It’s all because of CISA’s work “to counter disinformation” before the US elections. So the only American information security regulator capable of doing anything useful in a reasonable amount of time could be destroyed. Great idea, comrades, keep it up. 👍

I expect nothing but further degradation.

На русском

Linux Patch Wednesday: here is this May peak!

Linux Patch Wednesday: here is this May peak!

Linux Patch Wednesday: here is this May peak! 🤦‍♂️ Also about June Linux Patch Wednesday. If you remember, in my post about the May Linux Patch Wednesday I was happy that, despite the launch of the rule for Unknown dates, the peak in May was insignificant. Although “32406 oval definitions without a date received a nominal date of 2024-05-15”. It turned out that the peak was not visible due to an error in the code. Ba-dum-tss! 🥸🤷‍♂️

I noticed that not all CVEs are in LPW bulletins, despite the addition of nominal dates, for example the high-profile vulnerability Elevation of Privilege (Local Privilege Escalation) – Linux Kernel (CVE-2024-1086). I could not find it anywhere. I debugged the function that distributes vulnerabilities into bulletins and added tests. I have ensured that all 38362 CVEs from the Linux OVAL content are actually distributed in bulletins. Including CVE-2024-1086. Here it is in February:

$ grep "CVE-2024-1086"  bulletins/*
bulletins/2024-02-21.json: "CVE-2024-1086": [
bulletins/2024-02-21.json: "title": "CVE-2024-1086 linux",
bulletins/2024-02-21.json: "title": "CVE-2024-1086 linux",
bulletins/2024-02-21.json: "title": "CVE-2024-1086 linux",

Well, there really is a peak in May. And how huge it is! 11476 CVEs! 😱 This is so much that I regenerated the Vulristics report for it only using 2 sources: Vulners and BDU. Since even from Vulners the data was not collected quickly enough. The report contains 77 vulnerabilities with signs of active exploitation in the wild and 1404 vulnerabilities with exploits, but without signs of active exploitation in the wild. Since for the most part these are old vulnerabilities for which it was simply not clear exactly when they were fixed, for example, Remote Code Execution – Apache HTTP Server (CVE-2021-42013), I will not analyze them in detail – for those interested, see the report. But please note that the report size is very large.

🗒 Vulristics report on the May Linux Patch Wednesday (31.3 MB)

As for the June Linux Patch Wednesday, which was finalized on June 19, there are 1040 vulnerabilities. Also quite a lot. Why is this so? On the one hand, the rule for Unknown dates added 977 Debian OVAL definitions without a date. Not 30k, like in May, but also significant. Out of 1040 vulnerabilities, 854 are Linux Kernel vulnerabilities. Moreover, there are quite a lot of “old” vulnerability identifiers, but created in 2024. For example, CVE-2021-47489 with NVD Published Date 05/22/2024. 🤔 CNA Linux Kernel is doing something strange.

🔻 With signs of exploitation in the wild again Remote Code Execution – Chromium (CVE-2024-5274, CVE-2024-4947), like in Microsoft Patch Tuesday. According to the BDU, Remote Code Execution – Libarchive (CVE-2024-26256) is also exploited in the wild.

🔸 Another 20 vulnerabilities with a public exploit. I can highlight separately Remote Code Execution – Cacti (CVE-2024-25641) and Remote Code Execution – onnx/onnx framework (CVE-2024-5187).

🗒 Vulristics report on the June Linux Patch Wednesday (4.4 MB)

I asked the author of the article about the source of Tanya Brewer’s quotes (NVD manager from NIST)

I asked the author of the article about the source of Tanya Brewer's quotes  (NVD manager from NIST)

I asked the author of the article about the source of Tanya Brewer’s quotes (NVD manager from NIST). It turns out that she said this at the “NVD Symposium” session. This session is in the program, but its video recording was not posted to the VulnCon 2024 channel, despite “TLP:CLEAR”. 😏

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

On May 3, more than 826 new vulnerabilities were added to NVD (in just one day)

On May 3, more than 826 new vulnerabilities were added to NVD (in just one day)

On May 3, more than 826 new vulnerabilities were added to NVD (in just one day). Picture from the CVE.icu service, which visualizes NVD changes. There is also a list of these vulnerabilities. Most of them, 709, were added by ZDI. Why would they do that? 🤔

Last November I had a post (in Russian) that a number of trending vulnerabilities that were reported by ZDI are displayed in NVD as “CVE ID Not Found”. So, it seems the geniuses from Trend Micro ZDI finally noticed that their CVEs do not reach NVD and decided to fix this with such a massive import of problematic CVEs. 🤷‍♂️ At the same time, they clearly demonstrated the scale of the disaster. 🙂

Well, better late than never. But now it will be interesting to calculate the delay between the appearance of ZDI-CAN identifier and NVD CVE. 😏 For example, for RCE – WinRAR CVE-2023-40477, exploited in phishing attacks, it is 260 days. 🤠

PS: the final number for May 3rd is 847 CVE, but this is not that important.

На русском

Lord of the CVEs: NVD crisis

Lord of the CVEs: NVD crisis

Lord of the CVEs: NVD crisis. The NVD website currently has a banner:

“NIST is currently working to establish a consortium to address challenges in the NVD program and develop improved tools and methods. You will temporarily see delays in analysis efforts during this transition. We apologize for the inconvenience and ask for your patience as we work to improve the NVD program.”

In fact, NVDs have completely stopped enriching CVE data (CVSS, CWE, CPE). And panic is growing in the global near-VM community. Almost everyone used NVD’s publicly available content and took it for granted. It turned out that everything could stop and consumers of NVD content would have to self-organize and obtain new sources of such data, like the kids in Golding’s Lord of the Flies. 🙂🐚🐷🪰

I still believe that these are temporary difficulties that will be solved by the reorganization of NVD. But if not, then it will be interesting to see where this leads. 🌝

На русском

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