By Jake Edge
June 23, 2010
There are probably very few system administrators who haven't at least
contemplated some kind of retribution against attackers. Some may have
envisioned something physical—perhaps involving red hot pokers—but it's likely that the majority considered
extracting a payback via the same route they were attacked: the internet.
A French company has taken that idea to its logical extreme by presenting
thirteen "zero-day" exploits against tools
used by attackers at the SyScan security conference,
which was recently held in Singapore.
Many attackers use various
applications—exploit packs and toolkits—that they install on the web
sites they have
compromised. These applications launch attacks against the web browsers of
site visitors by probing for vulnerabilities, often in plugins like PDF or
Java, and using those it finds to compromise the visitor's machine.
TEHTRI-Security
investigated several of these applications and found exploitable
vulnerabilities in half a dozen of them. Unlike what it might have done for
more benign applications, TEHTRI released the information at the conference
with no warning to the projects and, not surprisingly, those who usually
clamor for "responsible disclosure" were rather mute.
These exploit toolkits typically have two components: the payload delivery
mechanism and an administrative interface. Payload delivery runs on the
compromised web site, looks at the browser to try to find vulnerabilities, and
then delivers the appropriate exploit. The web-based administrative
interface often aggregates information from multiple compromised web sites and
allows the attacker to see what browsers were successfully attacked, which
vulnerabilities were used, where
the user came from, and so on—essentially a web analytics tool for
malware purveyors. TEHTRI found vulnerabilities in both of these components,
which could lead to administrative interface defacement, attack management
database destruction, authentication cookie disclosure, disclosure of
attackers' IP addresses, and more.
The kinds of vulnerabilities that were found read like a laundry list of
the most common web application flaws: cross-site scripting, SQL injection,
cross-site request forgery, remote file disclosure, authentication bypass,
and so on. Even those who exploit web application flaws for a
"living"—exploit packs typically cost $500-1000 or more—seem
to be unable or unwilling to write code that avoids those same flaws.
It is rather ironic that the victims of these web
attacks can turn around and use the same techniques to attack the attacker.
As TEHTRI and others point out, though, it may well be illegal to turn the
tables on the attackers, no matter how satisfying—and
reasonable—the idea seems. Self-defense is likely not a defense
against computer crime statutes, at least in many jurisdictions. The
administrative interfaces typically run on systems under the control of the
attacker, but not necessarily a host that is "owned" (in the legal sense)
by them. It is probable that an unsuspecting victim's server has been
compromised to the extent that the web interface could be installed, which
makes an attack against it even riskier.
While some specifics were given at the SyScan talk, TEHTRI is keeping the
details of these vulnerabilities (and others that it hints about) to itself
for now. There is another SyScan conference in early July (in Hangzhou, China)
where TEHTRI's
Laurent Oudot is once again presenting on this topic so, in order to
keep up the interest in the talk, "it has been decided that we would not disclose the whole content of our
findings before this upcoming event", he said. As with much
security research, TEHTRI clearly sees these vulnerabilities as a marketing
tool, and is, unfortunately in some ways, treating them as such. On the
other hand, it's hard to feel much in the way of sympathy for the
developers or users of the tools, so disclosure of the flaws, and how to
exploit them, is not a particularly high priority.
Given that there aren't enough details, yet, to actually strike back against
attackers using these exploit toolkits, there is some time to consider the
ramifications of "defensive attacks". Computer crime statutes are
typically written rather loosely, such that any access other than what the
site owner wants can be considered a violation. As various folks
have found out, intent means very
little when it comes to computer "crime". In addition, judges and lawyers
are not terribly savvy about these technical issues, which makes
it that much harder for "white hats" to defend themselves. All of that
makes it extremely risky for anyone to use these exploits (or other
offensive methods) against attackers.
One way to use the vulnerabilities that TEHTRI has found
would be by, or in conjunction with, law enforcement. Exploiting some
of those holes could lead to other systems under the control of the attacker,
potentially including a host that can be associated with a specific
individual or group. That could lead to prosecution, and possibly
unravel a
larger network of attackers. Unfortunately, except for high-profile
attacks, there seem to be few resources available to track down and
prosecute these crimes.
In the end, the lasting legacy of these vulnerabilities is likely to be
their amusement value. It's probably too risky for "white hats" to use them,
and those who could use them without fear of prosecution (e.g. police)
don't have enough time, money, or interest to do so. That's sad in many
ways, and disappointing to system administrators who would like to extract
a small measure of retribution, but it's also hard to see it changing
anytime soon.
Comments (none posted)
Brief items
With this information, it is possible to reconstruct what would appear to
be [NY Times CEO] Janet Robinson's E-mail address, with one missing
letter. It only remains to try all 26 combinations to see which one is
accepted by the NY Times mail server.
--
Rajstennaj
Barrabas on "How
not to redact images"
I mean, even IPSEC RFC's are easier for me to understand, and that's saying
a lot...
-- Linux kernel hacker
Ted
Ts'o complains about SELinux complexity
Comments (none posted)
Forbes
reports
from Jon Oberheide's SummerCon talk on Android security.
"
Oberheide, who works for security startup Scio Security, developed
an application called 'RootStrap' to demonstrate that trust problem for
Android apps. After it's installed, Rootstrap periodically 'phones home' to
check for any new code that Oberheide wants to add to the program,
including any hidden control program or 'rootkit' that he wished to
install--hence the program's name. 'This is probably the most effective way
to build a mobile botnet,' Oberheide told SummerCon's audience of hackers
and security researchers." The article links to
the
slides from the presentation which contain some more hard information.
Comments (23 posted)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has released
a beta version of
https-everywhere, a Firefox extension which causes the browser to use
SSL whenever possible. "
Many sites on the web offer some limited
support for encryption over HTTPS, but make it difficult to use. For
instance, they may default to unencrypted HTTP, or fill encrypted pages
with links that go back to the unencrypted site. The HTTPS Everywhere
extension fixes these problems by rewriting all requests to these sites to
HTTPS."
Comments (26 posted)
The 2010 Linux security summit, which will be held just prior to LinuxCon in Boston on August 9, has announced the
main talks that will be presented. Speakers include Dan Walsh, Stephen Hemminger, Elena Reshetova, Brad Spengler, Mimi Zohar, Kees Cook, and others. "
The event is open to all registered LinuxCon attendees. You do not have to be a "security person" to attend -- we're seeking a diverse range of attendees, and welcome the participation of general developers, researchers, operations, and end-users. There will be panel and lightning talks sessions in addition to brief, selected presentations, with a strong focus on discussion." Click below for the full announcement.
Full Story (comments: none)
New vulnerabilities
beanstalkd: unauthorized execution of beanstalk client commands
| Package(s): | beanstalkd |
CVE #(s): | |
| Created: | June 22, 2010 |
Updated: | June 23, 2010 |
| Description: |
From the Red
Hat bugzilla:
Graham Barr reported that beanstalkd v1.4.5 and earlier, improperly
sanitized job data, sent together with put command from client.
A remote attacker, providing a specially-crafted job data in request,
could use this flaw to bypass intended beanstalk client commands
dispatch mechanism, leading to unauthorized execution of beanstalk
client commands. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
cups: multiple vulnerabilities
| Package(s): | cups |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2010-0540
CVE-2010-0542
CVE-2010-1748
|
| Created: | June 18, 2010 |
Updated: | March 2, 2011 |
| Description: |
From the Red Hat advisory:
A missing memory allocation failure check flaw, leading to a NULL pointer
dereference, was found in the CUPS "texttops" filter. An attacker could
create a malicious text file that would cause "texttops" to crash or,
potentially, execute arbitrary code as the "lp" user if the file was
printed. (CVE-2010-0542)
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) issue was found in the CUPS web
interface. If a remote attacker could trick a user, who is logged into the
CUPS web interface as an administrator, into visiting a specially-crafted
website, the attacker could reconfigure and disable CUPS, and gain access
to print jobs and system files. (CVE-2010-0540)
Note: As a result of the fix for CVE-2010-0540, cookies must now be enabled
in your web browser to use the CUPS web interface.
An uninitialized memory read issue was found in the CUPS web interface. If
an attacker had access to the CUPS web interface, they could use a
specially-crafted URL to leverage this flaw to read a limited amount of
memory from the cupsd process, possibly obtaining sensitive information.
(CVE-2010-1748)
|
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
drupal-cck: access bypass
| Package(s): | drupal-cck |
CVE #(s): | |
| Created: | June 22, 2010 |
Updated: | October 14, 2010 |
| Description: |
From the Drupal advisory:
The Content Construction Kit (CCK) project is a set of modules that allows you to add custom fields to nodes using a web browser.
The CCK "Node Reference" module can be configured to display referenced nodes as hidden, title, teaser or full view. Node access was not checked when displaying these which could expose view access on controlled nodes to unprivileged users.
In addition, Node Reference provides a backend URL that is used for asynchronous requests by the "autocomplete" widget to locate nodes the user can reference. This was not checking that the user had field level access to the source field, allowing direct queries to the backend URL to return node titles and IDs which the user would otherwise be unable to access. Note that as Drupal 5 CCK does not have any field access control functionality, this issue only applies to the Drupal 6 version. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
drupal-views: multiple vulnerabilities
| Package(s): | drupal-views |
CVE #(s): | |
| Created: | June 22, 2010 |
Updated: | June 23, 2010 |
| Description: |
Drupal has reported multiple
vulnerabilities in the views module, including cross-site request forgery
and cross-site scripting. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
fastjar: overwrite arbitrary files
| Package(s): | fastjar |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2010-0831
|
| Created: | June 22, 2010 |
Updated: | June 23, 2010 |
| Description: |
From the Ubuntu advisory:
Dan Rosenberg discovered that fastjar incorrectly handled file paths
containing ".." when unpacking archives. If a user or an automated system
were tricked into unpacking a specially crafted jar file, arbitrary files
could be overwritten with user privileges.
|
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
firefox et al: multiple vulnerabilities
Comments (none posted)
moodle: cross-site scripting
Comments (none posted)
opie: denial of service
| Package(s): | opie |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2010-1938
|
| Created: | June 22, 2010 |
Updated: | July 21, 2011 |
| Description: |
From the Ubuntu advisory:
Maksymilian Arciemowicz and Adam Zabrocki discovered that OPIE incorrectly
handled long usernames. A remote attacker could exploit this with a crafted
username and make applications linked against libopie crash, leading to a
denial of service.
|
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
pmount: insecure temporary file
| Package(s): | pmount |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2010-2192
|
| Created: | June 18, 2010 |
Updated: | June 23, 2010 |
| Description: |
From the Debian advisory:
Dan Rosenberg discovered that pmount, a wrapper around the standard mount
program which permits normal users to mount removable devices without a
matching /etc/fstab entry, creates files in /var/lock insecurely.
A local attacker could overwrite arbitrary files utilising a symlink attack.
|
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
squirrelmail: unauthorized port scanning
| Package(s): | squirrelmail |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2010-1637
|
| Created: | June 21, 2010 |
Updated: | June 23, 2010 |
| Description: |
From the Mandriva advisory:
A vulnerability was reported in the SquirrelMail Mail Fetch plugin,
wherein (when the plugin is activated by the administrator) a user
is allowed to specify (without restriction) any port number for their
external POP account settings. While the intention is to allow users
to access POP3 servers using non-standard ports, this also allows
malicious users to effectively port-scan any server through their
SquirrelMail service (especially note that when a SquirrelMail server
resides on a network behind a firewall, it may allow the user to
explore the network topography (DNS scan) and services available
(port scan) on the inside of (behind) that firewall). As this
vulnerability is only exploitable post-authentication, and better
more specific port scanning tools are freely available, we consider
this vulnerability to be of very low severity. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
tiff: multiple vulnerabilities
| Package(s): | tiff |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2010-1411
CVE-2010-2065
CVE-2010-2067
|
| Created: | June 22, 2010 |
Updated: | March 8, 2011 |
| Description: |
From the Ubuntu advisory:
Kevin Finisterre discovered that the TIFF library did not correctly handle
certain image structures. If a user or automated system were tricked
into opening a specially crafted TIFF image, a remote attacker could
execute arbitrary code with user privileges, or crash the application,
leading to a denial of service. (CVE-2010-1411)
Dan Rosenberg and Sauli Pahlman discovered multiple flaws in the TIFF
library. If a user or automated system were into opening a specially
crafted TIFF image, a remote attacker could execute arbitrary code
with user privileges, or crash the application, leading to a denial
of service. (CVE-2010-2065, CVE-2010-2067)
|
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
znc: segfault under certain conditions
| Package(s): | znc |
CVE #(s): | |
| Created: | June 21, 2010 |
Updated: | June 23, 2010 |
| Description: |
From the Red
Hat bugzilla:
A Debian bug report noted that ZNC would segfault under certain conditions,
such as clicking "traffic" in the webadmin pages or issuing the traffic command
on the /znc shell. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
Page editor: Jake Edge
Next page: Kernel development>>