Tag Archives: vulnerability

My colleagues from PT ESC discovered a previously unknown keylogger for Microsoft Exchange OWA

My colleagues from PT ESC discovered a previously unknown keylogger for Microsoft Exchange OWA

My colleagues from PT ESC discovered a previously unknown keylogger for Microsoft Exchange OWA. The injected code collects the logins/passwords that users enter to access the Exchange web interface and stores them in a special file. This file is accessible externally. Thus, attackers simply collect credentials to access confidential information and develop the attack further. 🙂

👾 The malware is installed by exploiting an old ProxyShell vulnerability (CVE-2021-34473, CVE-2021-34523, CVE-2021-31207).

🏛 A total of 30 victims were discovered, including government agencies, banks, IT companies, and educational institutions.

🌍 Countries attacked: Russia, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Niger, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Jordan, Lebanon and others.

🕵️‍♂️ The fact of compromise can be determined by a specific line in the logon.aspx file.

На русском

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

May Microsoft Patch Tuesday

May Microsoft Patch TuesdayMay Microsoft Patch TuesdayMay Microsoft Patch TuesdayMay Microsoft Patch TuesdayMay Microsoft Patch TuesdayMay Microsoft Patch TuesdayMay Microsoft Patch Tuesday

May Microsoft Patch Tuesday. There are 91 vulnerabilities in total. Of those, 29 were added between April and May Patch Tuesday.

Two vulnerabilities have signs of exploitation in the wild and the presence of a functional exploit (not yet public):

🔻 Security Feature Bypass – Windows MSHTML Platform (CVE-2024-30040). In fact, an attacker can execute arbitrary code when the victim opens a specially crafted document. It is exploited through phishing.
🔻 Elevation of Privilege – Windows DWM Core Library (CVE-2024-30051). A local attacker can gain SYSTEM privileges on the vulnerable host. Microsoft credits four different groups for reporting the bug, indicating that the vulnerability is being widely exploited. The vulnerability is associated with the QakBot malware.

Among the rest we can note:

🔸 Security Feature Bypass – Windows Mark of the Web (CVE-2024-30050). Such vulnerabilities have been frequently exploited recently. Microsoft indicates that there is a functional exploit (private) for the vulnerability.
🔸 Remote Code Execution – Microsoft SharePoint Server (CVE-2024-30044). An authenticated attacker with Site Owner privileges or higher can execute arbitrary code in the context of SharePoint Server by uploading a specially crafted file.
🔸 Elevation of Privilege – Windows Search Service (CVE-2024-30033). ZDI believes that the vulnerability has the potential to be exploited in the wild.
🔸 Remote Code Execution – Microsoft Excel (CVE-2024-30042). An attacker can execute code, presumably in the user’s context, when a malicious file is opened.

🗒 Vulristics report

На русском

The Americans have released joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CISA, FBI, HHS, MS-ISAC) against the Black Basta ransomware

The Americans have released joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CISA, FBI, HHS, MS-ISAC) against the Black Basta ransomware

The Americans have released joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CISA, FBI, HHS, MS-ISAC) against the Black Basta ransomware. It is alleged that as of May 2024, more than 500 organizations worldwide have been affected by Black Basta, including businesses and critical infrastructure in North America, Australia and Europe. 12 of 16 critical infrastructure sectors are affected.

The ransomware was first spotted in April 2022. Initial Access is obtained through phishing or exploitation of the February vulnerability AuthBypass in ConnectWise ScreenConnect (CVE-2024-1709).

Privilege Escalation and Lateral Movement Toolkit: Mimikatz and Vulnerability Exploitation ZeroLogon (CVE-2020-1472), NoPac (CVE-2021-42278, CVE-2021-42287), PrintNightmare (CVE-2021-34527). Patches have been available for years, but organizations have not installed them. 🤷‍♂️ Perhaps they hoped that the perimeter would never be breached. 😏

На русском

Today starts an online hackathon organized by the MaxPatrol VM Positive Technologies team

Today starts an online hackathon organized by the MaxPatrol VM Positive Technologies team

Today starts an online hackathon organized by the MaxPatrol VM Positive Technologies team. Participants will develop vulnerability detection rules. There were no restrictions on the participation of PT employees, so I also applied and will share my impressions in the Telegram channel. 😏 I am very exited. 🤩

IMHO, involving the community in the development of security content is exactly what will radically improve the completeness and quality of vulnerability/misconfiguration detection in VM products. And that is the very essence of these products.

На русском

Yesterday Qualys introduced CyberSecurity Asset Management 3.0

Yesterday Qualys introduced CyberSecurity Asset Management 3.0Yesterday Qualys introduced CyberSecurity Asset Management 3.0

Yesterday Qualys introduced CyberSecurity Asset Management 3.0. The product name contains “Asset Management”, but in the first sentence the solution is presented to us as “re-defining attack surface management” (EASM). Such a Gartner-style marketing mishmash. 🤷‍♂️ At the same time, Qualys does have quite unusual Asset Management and EASM. And it’s unusual how they came to this. These are solely my impressions as an outside observer; I do not have any insider information.

🔹 In 2020, Qualys introduced a Global AssetView solution. To put it simply, users could roll out Qualys cloud agents to hosts in the their infrastructure, deploy Qualys Passive Sensor to search for unknown assets in network traffic, and based on this get some basic understanding of their infrastructure (without detecting vulnerabilities). And most importantly, it’s all free! This is a Freemium offer that allowed the company to conveniently upsell the functionality of Vulnerability Management and Compliance Management. The move is very, very bold.

🔹 In 2021, as a development of Global AssetView, the CyberSecurity Asset Management product appeared. This was already a full-fledged Asset Management: two-way synchronization with ServiceNow CMDB, asset criticality assessment, analysis of installed software, attack surface analysis using Shodan (the last option was not particularly emphasized back then). As far as I can understand, the original purpose of CSAM was to deal with cases that affect the security of assets, but are not, strictly speaking, vulnerabilities: shadow IT, upcoming end-of-life (EoL)-of-support (EoS) hosts, hosts without installed EDR, risky ports accessible from the Internet, misconfigurations of software and services.

🔹 In 2022, Qualys released CyberSecurity Asset Management 2.0 with an integrated External Attack Surface Management (EASM) solution. The idea that EASM can be developed and delivered as part of an Asset Management solution is quite unusual. But there is logic in this. Reducing the attack surface is not about patching this or that vulnerable server. This is about the fact that there should not be any unnecessary junk (“if an externally facing asset or its configuration is not necessary for the business, then it should be shut down“). And from this point of view, EASM is really not so much a perimeter scanner. It is rather a cunning utility that lists non-obvious assets that are, with some probability, related to the company, and shows the risks associated with them. 🐇 🎩 Is this part of Аsset Management? Well, apparently so.

So, as far as I understand, Qualys now has VMDR (Vulnerability Management, Detection and Response), which includes CSAM (CyberSecurity Asset Management ), which in turn includes EASM (External Attack Surface Management). Something like a matryoshka. 🪆

What’s in CSAM 3.0?

🔻 Qualys removed mentions of Shodan. “CSAM 3.0 uses new attribution scoring and expands the use of open-source technology and a proprietary internet scanner to drive accurate discovery, attribution, and vulnerability assessment”. When attributing an asset, attribution scoring are displayed (you can filter by them).

🔻Cloud Agent Passive Sensing asset detection capabilities are now used (host agents that sniff traffic).

🔻Connectors for integration with asset data sources (connectors for Active Directory and BMC Helix announced). Apparently there was no integration with AD before.🤷‍♂️

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