Tag Archive for: NIST

In 2024, geopolitical instability, marked by conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, emphasized the need for stronger cybersecurity in both the public and private sector. China targeted U.S. defense, utilities, internet providers and transportation, while Russia launched coordinated cyberattacks on U.S. and European nations, seeking to influence public opinion and create discord among Western allies over the Ukrainian war. As 2024 ends, we can look back at a hectic cybersecurity landscape on the edge.

2024 marked another record setting year for CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) disclosures. Even if many are so-called “AI Slop” reports [1][2], the sheer volume of published vulnerabilities creates a big haystack. As IT security teams seek to find high-risk needles in a larger haystack, the chance of oversight becomes more prevalent. 2024 was also a record year for ransomware payouts in terms of volume and size, and Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.

It also saw the NIST NVD outage, which affected many organizations around the world including security providers. Greenbone’s CVE scanner is a CPE (Common Platform Enumeration) matching function and has been affected by the NIST NVD outage. However, Greenbone’s primary scanning engine, OpenVAS Scanner, is unaffected. OpenVAS actively interacts directly with services and applications, allowing Greenbone’s engineers to build reliable vulnerability tests using the details from initial CVE reports.

In 2025, fortune will favor organizations that are prepared. Attackers are weaponizing cyber-intelligence faster; average time-to-exploit (TTE) is mere days, even hours. The rise of AI will create new challenges for cybersecurity. Alongside these advancements, traditional threats remain critical for cloud security and software supply chains. Security analysts predict that fundamental networking devices such as VPN gateways, firewalls and other edge devices will continue to be a hot target in 2025.

In this edition of our monthly Threat Report, we review the most pressing vulnerabilities and active exploitation campaigns that emerged in December 2024.

Mitel MiCollab: Zero-Day to Actively Exploited in a Flash

Once vulnerabilities are published, attackers are jumping on them with increased speed. Some vulnerabilities have public proof of concept (PoC) exploit code within hours, leaving defenders with minimal reaction time. In early December, researchers at GreyNoise observed exploitation of Mitel MiCollab the same day that PoC code was published. Mitel MiCollab combines voice, video, messaging, presence and conferencing into one platform. The new vulnerabilities have drawn alerts from the Belgian national Center for Cybersecurity, the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) in addition to the American CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency). Patching the recent vulnerabilities in MiCollab is considered urgent.

Here are details about the new actively exploited CVEs in Mitel MiCollab:

  • CVE-2024-41713 (CVSS 7.8 High): A path traversal vulnerability in the NuPoint Unified Messaging (NPM) component of Mitel MiCollab allows unauthenticated path traversal by leveraging the “…/” technique in HTTP requests. Exploitation can expose highly sensitive files.
  • CVE-2024-35286 (CVSS 10 Critical): A SQL injection vulnerability has been identified in the NPM component of Mitel MiCollab which could allow a malicious actor to conduct a SQL injection attack.

Since mid-2022, CISA has tracked three additional actively exploited CVEs in Mitel products which are known to be leveraged in ransomware attacks. Greenbone is able to detect endpoints vulnerable to these high severity CVEs with active checks [4][5].

Array Networks SSL VPNs Exploited by Ransomware

CVE-2023-28461 (CVSS 9.8 Critical) is a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in Array Networks Array AG Series and vxAG SSL VPN appliances. The devices, touted by the vendor as a preventative measure against ransomware, are now being actively exploited in recent ransomware attacks. Array Networks themselves were breached by the Dark Angels ransomware gang earlier this year [1][2].

According to recent reports, Array Networks holds a significant market share in the Application Delivery Controller (ADC) market. According to the ​​IDC’s WW Quarterly Ethernet Switch Tracker, they are the market leader in India, with a market share of 34.2%. Array Networks has released patches for affected products running ArrayOS AG 9.4.0.481 and earlier versions. The Greenbone Enterprise Feed has included a detection test for CVE-2023-28461 since it was disclosed in late March 2023.

CVE-2024-11667 in Zyxel Firewalls

CVE-2024-11667 (CVSS 9.8 Critical) in Zyxel firewall appliances are being actively exploited in ongoing ransomware attacks. A directory traversal vulnerability in the web management interface could allow an attacker to download or upload files via a maliciously crafted URL. Zyxel Communications is a Taiwanese company specializing in designing and manufacturing networking devices for businesses, service providers and consumers. Reports put Zyxel’s market share at roughly 4.2% of the ICT industry with a diverse global footprint including large Fortune 500 companies.

A defense in depth approach to cybersecurity is especially important in cases such as this. When attackers compromise a networking device such as a firewall, typically they are not immediately granted access to highly sensitive data. However, initial access allows attackers to monitor network traffic and enumerate the victim’s network in search of high value targets.

Zyxel advises updating your device to the latest firmware, temporarily disabling remote access if updates cannot be applied immediately and applying their best practices for securing distributed networks. CVE-2024-11667 affects Zyxel ATP series firmware versions V5.00 through V5.38, USG FLEX series firmware versions V5.00 through V5.38, USG FLEX 50(W) series firmware versions V5.10 through V5.38 and USG20(W)-VPN series firmware versions V5.10 through V5.38. Greenbone can detect the vulnerability CVE-2024-11667 across all affected products.

Critical Flaws in Apache Struts 2

CVE-2024-53677 (CVSS 9.8 Critical), an unrestricted file upload [CWE-434] flaw affecting Apache Struts 2 allows attackers to upload executable files into web-root directories. If a web-shell is uploaded, the flaw may lead to unauthorized Remote Code Execution. Apache Struts is an open-source Java-based web-application framework widely used by the public and private sectors including government agencies, financial institutions and other large organizations [1]. Proof of concept (PoC) exploit code is publicly available, and CVE-2024-53677 is being actively exploited increasing its risk.

The vulnerability was originally tracked as CVE-2023-50164, published in December 2023 [2][3]. However, similarly to a recent flaw in VMware vCenter, the original patch was ineffective resulting in the re-emergence of vulnerability. CVE-2024-53677 affects the FileUploadInterceptor component and thus, applications not using this module are unaffected. Users should update their Struts2 instance to version 6.4.0 or higher and migrate to the new file upload mechanism. Other new critical CVEs in popular open-source software (OSS) from Apache:

The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) follows a structured process across its projects that encourages private reporting and releasing patches prior to public disclosure so patches are available for all CVEs mentioned above. Greenbone is able to detect systems vulnerable to CVE-2024-53677 and other recently disclosed vulnerabilities in ASF Foundation products.

Palo Alto’s Secure DNS Actively Exploited for DoS

CVE-2024-3393 (CVSS 8.7 High) is a DoS (Denial of Service) vulnerability in the DNS Security feature of PAN-OS. The flaw allows an unauthenticated attacker to reboot PA-Series firewalls, VM-Series firewalls, CN-Series firewalls and Prisma Access devices via malicious packets sent through the data plane. By repeatedly triggering this condition, attackers can cause the firewall to enter maintenance mode. CISA has identified CVE-2024-3393 vulnerability as actively exploited and it’s among five other actively exploited vulnerabilities in Palo Alto’s products over only the past two months.

According to the advisory posted by Palo Alto, only devices with a DNS Security License or Advanced DNS Security License and logging enabled are affected. It would be an easy assumption to say that these conditions mean that top-tier enterprise customers are affected. Greenbone is able to detect the presence of devices affected by CVE-2024-3393 with a version detection test.

Microsoft Security in 2024: Who Left the Windows Open?

While it would be unfair to single out Microsoft for providing vulnerable software in 2024, the Redmond BigTech certainly didn’t beat security expectations. A total of 1,119 CVEs were disclosed in Microsoft products in 2024; 53 achieved critical severity (CVSS > 9.0), 43 were added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, and at least four were known vectors for ransomware attacks. Although the comparison is rough, the Linux kernel saw more (3,148) new CVEs but only three were rated critical severity and only three were added to CISA KEV. Here are the details of the new actively exploited CVEs in Microsoft Windows:

  • CVE-2024-35250 (CVSS 7.8 High): A privilege escalation flaw allowing an attacker with local access to a system to gain system-level privileges. The vulnerability was discovered in April 2024, and PoC exploit code appeared online in October.
  • CVE-2024-49138 (CVSS 7.8 High): A heap-based buffer overflow [CWE-122] privilege escalation vulnerability; this time in the Microsoft Windows Common Log File System (CLFS) driver. Although no publicly available exploit exists, security researchers have evidence that this vulnerability can be exploited by crafting a malicious CLFS log to execute privileged commands at the system privilege level.

Detection and mitigation of these new Windows CVEs is critical since they are actively under attack. Both were patched in Microsoft’s December patch release. Greenbone is able to detect CVE-2024-35250 and CVE-2024-49138 as well as all other Microsoft vulnerabilities published as CVEs.

Summary

2024 highlighted the continuously challenging cybersecurity landscape with record-setting vulnerability disclosures, ransomware payouts, DoS attacks and an alarming rise in active exploitations. The rapid weaponization of vulnerabilities emphasizes the need for a continuous vulnerability management strategy and a defense-in-depth approach.

December saw new critical flaws in Mitel, Apache and Microsoft products. More network products: Array Networks VPNs and Zyxel firewalls are now being exploited by ransomware threat actors underscoring the urgency for proactive patching and robust detection measures. As we enter 2025, fortune will favor those prepared; organizations must stay vigilant to mitigate risks in an increasingly hostile cyber landscape.

Every business has mission critical activities. Security controls are meant to protect those critical activities to ensure business operations and strategic goals can be sustained indefinitely. Using an “Install and forget”-approach to security provides few assurances for achieving these objectives. An ever-changing digital landscape means a security gap could lead to a high stakes data breach. Things like privilege creep, server sprawl, and configuration errors tend to pop-up like weeds. Security teams who don’t continuously monitor don’t catch them – attackers do. For this reason, cyber security frameworks tend to be iterative processes that include monitoring, auditing, and continuous improvement.

Security officers should be asking: What does our organization need to measure to gain strong assurances and enable continuous improvement? In this article we will take you through a rationale for Key Performance Indicators (KPI) in cyber security outlined by industry leaders such as NIST and The SANS Institute and define a core set of vulnerability management specific KPIs. The most fundamental KPIs covered here can serve as a starting point for organizations implementing a vulnerability management program from scratch, while the more advanced measures can provide depth of visibility for organizations with mature vulnerability management programs already in place.

Cyber Security KPI Support Core Strategic Business Goals

KPI are generated by collecting and analyzing relevant performance data and are mainly used for two strategic goals. The first is to facilitate evidence-based decision making. For example, KPI can help managers benchmark how vulnerability management programs are performing in order to assess the overall level of risk mitigation and decide whether to allocate more resources or accept the status-quo. The second core strategic goal that KPIs support is to provide accountability of security activities. KPI can help identify causes of poor performance and provide an early warning of insufficient or poorly implemented security controls. With proper monitoring of vulnerability management performance, the effectiveness of existing procedures can be evaluated, allowing them to be adjusted or supplemented with additional controls. The evidence collected while generating KPIs can also be used to demonstrate compliance with internal policies, mandatory or voluntary cyber security standards, or any applicable laws and regulations by evidencing cyber security program activities.

The scope of measuring KPI can be enterprise-wide or focused on departments or infrastructure that is critical to business operations. This scope can also be adjusted as a cybersecurity program matures. During the initial stages of starting a vulnerability management, only basic information may be available to build KPI metrics from. However, as a program matures, data collection will become more robust, supporting more complex KPI metrics. More advanced measures may also be justified to gain high visibility for organizations with increased risk.

Types of Cyber Security Measures

NIST SP 800-55 V1 (and it’s predecessor NIST SP 800-55 r2) focuses on the development and collection of three types of measures:

  • Implementation Measures: These measure the execution of security policy and gauge the progress of implementation. Examples include: the total number of information systems scanned and the percentage of critical systems scanned for vulnerabilities.
  • Effectiveness/Efficiency Measures: These measure the results of security activities and monitor program-level and system-level processes. This can help gauge if security controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and producing a desirable outcome. For example, the percentage of all identified critical severity vulnerabilities that have been mitigated across all operationally critical infrastructure.
  • Impact Measures: These measure the business consequences of security activities such as cost savings, costs incurred by addressing security vulnerabilities, or other business related impacts of information security.

Important Indicators for Vulnerability Management

Since vulnerability management is fundamentally the process of identifying and remediating known vulnerabilities, KPI that provide insight into the detection and remediation of known threats are most appropriate. In addition to these two key areas, assessing a particular vulnerability management tool’s effectiveness for detecting vulnerabilities can help compare different products. Since these are the most logical ways to evaluate vulnerability management activities, our list has grouped KPI into these three categories. Tags are also added to each item indicating which purpose specified in NIST SP 800-55 the metric satisfies.

While not an exhaustive list, here are some key KPIs for vulnerability management:

Detection Performance Metrics

  • Scan Coverage (Implementation): This measures the percentage of an organization’s total assets that are being scanned for vulnerabilities. Scan coverage is especially relevant at the early stages of program implementation for setting targets and measuring the evolving maturity of the program. Scan coverage can also be used to identify gaps in an organization’s IT infrastructure that are not being scanned putting them at increased risk.
  • Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) (Efficiency): This measures the average time to detect vulnerabilities from when information is first published and when a security control is able to identify it. MTTD may be improved by adjusting the frequency of updating a vulnerability scanner’s modules or frequency of conducting scans.
  • Unidentified Vulnerabilities Ratio (Effectiveness): The ratio of vulnerabilities identified proactively through scans versus those discovered through breach or incident post-mortem analyses. A higher ratio suggests better proactive detection capabilities.
  • Automated Discovery Rate (Efficiency): This metric measures the percentage of vulnerabilities identified by automated tools versus manual discovery methods. Higher automation can lead to more consistent and faster detection.

Remediation Performance Metrics

  • Mean Time to Remediate (MTTR; Efficiency): This measures the average time taken to fix vulnerabilities after they are detected. By tracking remediation times organizations can gauge their responsiveness to security threats and evaluate the risk posed by exposure time. A shorter MTTR generally indicates a more agile security operation.
  • Remediation Coverage (Effectiveness): This metric represents the proportion of detected vulnerabilities that have been successfully remediated and serves as a critical indicator of effectiveness in addressing identified security risks. Remediation coverage can be adjusted to specifically reflect the rate of closing critical or high severity security gaps. By focusing on the most dangerous vulnerabilities first, security teams can more effectively minimize risk exposure.
  • Risk Score Reduction (Impact): This metric reflects the overall impact that vulnerability management activities are having to risk. By monitoring changes in the risk score, managers can evaluate how well the threat posed by exposed vulnerabilities is being managed. Risk Score Reduction is typically calculated using risk assessment tools that provide a contextual view of each organization’s unique IT infrastructure and risk profile.
  • Rate Of Compliance (Impact): This metric represents the percentage of systems that comply with specific cyber security regulations, standards, or internal policies. It serves as an essential measure for gauging compliance status and provides evidence of this status to various stakeholders. It also serves as a warning if compliance requirements are not being satisfied, thereby reducing the risk of penalties and ensuring the intended security posture put forth by the compliance target.
  • Vulnerability Reopen Rate (Efficiency): This metric measures the percentage of vulnerabilities that are reopened after being marked as resolved. Reopen rate indicates the efficiency of remediation efforts. Ideally, once a remediation ticket has been closed, the vulnerability does not issue another ticket.
  • Cost of Remediation (Impact): This metric measures the total cost associated with fixing detected vulnerabilities, encompassing both direct and indirect expenses. Cost analysis can aid decisions for budgeting and resource allocation by tracking the amount of time and resources required to detect and apply remediation.

Vulnerability Scanner Effectiveness Metrics

  • True Positive Detection Rate (Effectiveness): This measures the percentage of vulnerabilities that can be accurately detected by a particular tool. True positive detection rate measures the effective coverage of a vulnerability scanning tool and allows two vulnerability scanning products to be compared according to their relative value.
  • False Positive Detection Rate (Effectiveness): This metric measures the frequency at which a tool incorrectly identifies non-existent vulnerabilities as being present. This can lead to wasted resources and effort. False positive detection rate can gauge the reliability of a vulnerability scanning tool to ensure it aligns with operational requirements.

Key Takeaways

By generating and analyzing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), organizations can satisfy fundamental cybersecurity requirements for continuous monitoring and improvement. KPI also supports core business strategies such as evidence-based decision making and accountability.

With quantitative insight into vulnerability management processes, organizations can better gauge their progress and more accurately evaluate their cyber security risk posture. By aggregating an appropriate set of KPIs, organizations can track the maturity of their vulnerability management activities, identify gaps in controls, policies, and procedures that limit the effectiveness and efficiency of their vulnerability remediation, and ensure alignment with compliance with internal risk requirements and relevant security standards, laws and regulations.

References

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Measurement Guide for Information Security: Volume 1 — Identifying and Selecting Measures. NIST, January 2024, https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/55/v1/ipd

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Performance Measurement Guide for Information Security, Revision 2. NIST, November 2022, https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/55/r2/iwd

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Assessing Security and Privacy Controls in Information Systems and Organizations Revision 5. NIST, January 2022, https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/a/r5/final

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments Revision 1. NIST, September 2012, https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/30/r1/final

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Guide to Enterprise Patch Management Planning: Preventive Maintenance for Technology Revision 4. NIST, April 2022, https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/40/r4/final

SANS Institute. A SANS 2021 Report: Making Visibility Definable and Measurable. SANS Institute, June 2021, https://www.sans.org/webcasts/2021-report-making-visibility-definable-measurable-119120/

SANS Institute. A Guide to Security Metrics. SANS Institute, June 2006, https://www.sans.org/white-papers/55/

March 2024 was another eventful month for vulnerabilities and cybersecurity in general. It was the second consecutive month of lapsed Common Vulnerability Exposure (CVE) enrichment putting defenders in a precarious position with reduced risk visibility. The Linux kernel continued its elevated pace of vulnerability disclosures and was commissioned as a new CVE Numbering Authority (CNA). In addition, several critical vulnerabilities were added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) list including Microsoft Windows, Fortinet FortiClientEMS, all the major browsers, and enterprise Continuous Integration And Delivery software vendor JetBrains.

Here’s a quick review of March 2024’s most impactful cybersecurity events.

The NIST NVD Disruption

NIST’s National Vulnerability Database (NVD) team largely abandoned CVE Enrichment in February 2024 with no warning. NIST NVD slowed to a CVE enrichment rate of just over 5% during March and it became obvious that the abrupt halt was not just a short-term outage. Disruption of CVE enrichment puts cybersecurity operations around the world at a big disadvantage because the NVD is the largest centralized repository of vulnerability severity information. Without severity enrichment, cybersecurity admins are left with very little information for vulnerability prioritization and risk management decision making.

Experts in the cybersecurity community traded public speculation until the VulnCon & Annual CNA Summit, where NIST’s Tanya Brewer announced that the non-regulatory US government agency would relinquish some aspects of the NVD management to an industry consortium. Brewer did not explain the exact cause for outage, but forecasted several additional goals for NIST NVD moving forward:

  • Allowing more outside parties to submit enrichment data
  • Improving the NVD’s software identification capabilities
  • Adding new types of threat intelligence data such as EPSS and the NIST Bugs Framework
  • Improving the NVD data’s usability and supporting new use cases
  • Automating some aspects of CVE analysis

Plenty Going On “In The Linux Kernel”

A total of 259 CVEs were disclosed in March 2024 with a description that began with: “In the Linux kernel” marking the second most active month ever for Linux vulnerability disclosures. The all time record was set one month prior in February with a total of 279 CVEs issued. March also marked a new milestone for kernel.org, the maintainer of the Linux kernel, as it was inducted as a CVE Numbering Authority (CNA). Kernel.org will now assume the role of assigning and enriching CVEs that impact the Linux kernel. Going forward the kernel.org asserts that CVEs will only be issued for discovered vulnerabilities after a fix is available, and CVEs will only be issued for versions of the Linux kernel that are actively supported.

Multiple High Severity Vulnerabilities In Fortinet Products

Several High severity vulnerabilities in Fortinet FortiOS and FortiClientEMS were disclosed. Of these, CVE-2023-48788 has been added to CISA’s KEV database. The risk imposed by CVE-2023-48788 is further compounded by the existence of a publicly available proof-of-concept (PoC) exploit. While CVE-2023-48788 is notably an SQL Injection [CWE-89] vulnerability, it can be exploited in tandem with the xp_cmdshell function of Microsoft SQL Server for remote code execution (RCE). Even when xp_cmdshell is not enabled by default, researchers have shown that it can be enabled via the SQL Injection weakness.

Greenbone has a network vulnerability test (NVT) that can identify systems affected by CVE-2023-48788, local security checks (LSCs) [1][2] that can identify systems affected by CVE-2023-42790 and CVE-2023-42789, and another LSC to identify systems affected by CVE-2023-36554. A proof-of-concept exploit for CVE-2023-3655 has been posted to GitHub.

  • CVE-2023-48788 (CVSS 9.8 Critical): A SQL Injection vulnerability allowing an attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted packets in Fortinet FortiClientEMS version 7.2.0 through 7.2.2.
  • CVE-2023-42789 (CVSS 9.8 Critical): An out-of-bounds write in Fortinet FortiOS allows an attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted HTTP requests. Affected products include FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, 7.2.0 through 7.2.5, 7.0.0 through 7.0.12, 6.4.0 through 6.4.14, 6.2.0 through 6.2.15, FortiProxy 7.4.0, 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, 7.0.0 through 7.0.12, 2.0.0 through 2.0.13.
  • CVE-2023-42790 (CVSS 8.1 High): A stack-based buffer overflow in Fortinet FortiOS allows an attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted HTTP requests. Affected products include FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, 7.2.0 through 7.2.5, 7.0.0 through 7.0.12, 6.4.0 through 6.4.14, 6.2.0 through 6.2.15, FortiProxy 7.4.0, 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, 7.0.0 through 7.0.12, 2.0.0 through 2.0.13.
  • CVE-2023-36554 (CVSS 9.8 Critical): FortiManager is prone to an improper access control vulnerability in backup and restore features that can allow attackers to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted HTTP requests. Affected products are FortiManager version 7.4.0, version 7.2.0 through 7.2.3, version 7.0.0 through 7.0.10, version 6.4.0 through 6.4.13 and 6.2, all versions.

Zero Days In All Major Browsers

Pwn2Own, an exciting hacking competition took place at CanSecWest security conference on March 20th – 22nd. At this year’s event, 29 distinct zero-days were discovered and over one million dollars in prize money was awarded to security researchers. Independent entrant Manfred Paul earned a total of $202,500 including $100,000 for two zero day sandbox escape vulnerabilities in Mozilla Firefox. Mozilla quickly issued updates to Firefox with version 124.0.1.

Manfred Paul also achieved remote code execution (RCE) in Apple’s Safari by combining Pointer Authentication Code (PAC) [D3-PAN] bypass and integer underflow [CWE-191] zero-days. PACs in Apple’s operating systems are cryptographic signatures for verifying the integrity of pointers to prevent the exploitation of memory corruption bugs. PAC has been bypassed before for RCE in Safari. Manfred defeated Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge via an Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input [CWE-1284] vulnerability to complete the browser exploit trifecta.

The fact all major browsers were breached underscores the high risk of visiting untrusted Internet sites and the overall lack of security provided by major browser vendors. Greenbone includes tests to identify vulnerable versions of Firefox and Chrome.

  • CVE-2024-29943 (CVSS 10 Critical): An attacker was able to exploit Firefox via an out-of-bounds read or write on a JavaScript object by fooling range-based bounds check elimination. This vulnerability affects versions of Firefox before 124.0.1.
  • CVE-2024-29944 (CVSS 10 Critical): Firefox incorrectly handled Message Manager listeners allowing an attacker to inject an event handler into a privileged object to execute arbitrary code.
  • CVE-2024-2887 (High Severity): A type confusion [CWE-843] vulnerability in the Chromium browser’s implementation of WebAssembly (Wasm).

New Actively Exploited Microsoft Vulnerabilities

Microsoft’s March 2024 security advisory included a total of 61 vulnerabilities impacting many products. The Windows kernel had the most CVEs disclosed with a total of eight, five of which are rated high severity. Microsoft WDAC OLE DB provider for SQL, Windows ODBC Driver, SQL Server, and Microsoft WDAC ODBC Driver combined to account for ten high severity CVEs. There are no workarounds for any vulnerabilities in the group meaning that updates must be applied to all affected products. Greenbone includes vulnerability tests to detect the newly disclosed vulnerabilities from Microsoft’s March 2024 security advisory.

Microsoft has so far tagged six its new March 2024 vulnerabilities as “Exploitation More Likely”, while two new vulnerabilities affecting Microsoft products were added to the CISA KEV list; CVE-2023-29360 (CVSS 8.4 High) affecting Microsoft Streaming Service and CVE-2024-21338 (CVSS 7.8 High) published in 2023 were assigned actively exploited status in March.

CVE-2024-27198: Critical Severity CVE In JetBrains TeamCity

TeamCity is a popular continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) server developed by JetBrains, the same company behind other widely-used development tools like IntelliJ IDEA, the leading Kotlin Integrated Development Environment (IDE), and PyCharm, an IDE for Python. TeamCity is designed to help software development teams automate and streamline their build, test, and deployment processes and competes with other CI/CD platforms such as Jenkins, GitLab CI/CD, Travis CI, and Azure DevOps, among others. TeamCity is estimated to hold almost 6% of the total Continuous Integration And Delivery market share and ranks third overall, while according to JetBrains, over 15.9 million developers use their products, including 90 of the Fortune Global Top 100 companies.

Given JetBrains market position, a critical severity vulnerability in one of their products will quickly attract the attention of threat actors. Within three days of CVE-2024-27198 being published it was added to the CISA KEV catalog. Greenbone Enterprise vulnerability feed includes tests to identify affected products including a version check and an active check that sends a crafted HTTP GET request and analyzes the response.

When combined, CVE-2024-27198 (CVSS 9.8 Critical) and CVE-2024-27199 allow an attacker to bypass authentication using an alternative path or channel [CWE-288] to read protected files including those outside of the restricted directory [CWE-23] and perform limited admin actions.

Summary

March 2024 was another fever-pitched month for software vulnerabilities due to the NIST NVD outage and active exploitation of several vulnerabilities in enterprise and consumer software products. On the bright side, several zero-day vulnerabilities impacting all major browsers were identified and patched.

However, the fact that a single researcher was able to so quickly exploit all major browsers is serious wake-up call for all organizations since the browser plays such a fundamental role in modern enterprise operations. Vulnerability management remains a core element in cybersecurity strategy, and regularly scanning IT infrastructure for vulnerabilities ensures that the latest threats can be identified for remediation – closing the gaps that attackers seek to exploits for access to critical systems and data.

The water sector is one of the critical infrastructures (CRITIS). A successful attack on the sector can lead to significant hygiene and health problems and, in the worst case, threaten human lives. At the 6th VDI conference on “Optimizing Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plants”, Greenbone will provide information on vulnerability management in the water sector and how the attack surface of IT infrastructures can be reduced by early detection and elimination of vulnerabilities.

View of an industrial control system (ICS)

Everything Fine Thanks to Digitization? Digitization is seen as the savior of the hour. Even if this may be viewed critically at times, this development cannot be stopped. There are simply too many reasons in favor of digitization. But there are also many reasons that we need to take a critical look at, especially where our security is concerned. The more information technology we put in place, the more digitized attack surfaces we offer. Malicious users of these attack surfaces can operate globally, and likewise digitized currencies like Bitcoin allow them to profit from vulnerabilities globally as well. Unlike a bank robbery, an attack on an industrial wastewater facility is more of a a means to an end. The attacker does not want the contents of a safe, but rather targets the vulnerability as such in order to gain advantages, usually through blackmail. Not only technical systems themselves are attacked, but often also the technical and organizational environment from networks to administration. These attackers are not hackers with hoodies and matrix screen savers who just happen to have emergency on their account, but criminal organizations that are industrially and professionally organized. We must arm ourselves against them with resilient organizations, processes and solutions. This brings the topic of cyber resilience more and more to our attention. Cyber resilience is the ability of a company or organization to maintain its business processes despite adverse cyber circumstances. These can be cyber attacks, but also unintentional obstacles such as a failed software update or human error. Cyber resilience is a comprehensive concept that goes beyond IT security. It combines the areas of information security, business continuity, and organizational resilience. To achieve a state of cyber resilience, it is important to identify vulnerabilities early, prioritize them economically, and eliminate them. Infographic showing the cyclical process of vulnerability management with the steps: prepare, identify, classify, prioritize, assign, mitigate and remediate, store and repeat, improve. Why Cyber Resilience Is Particularly Important for Critical Infrastructures Sustainable cyber resilience is important for companies in all industries. But it is indispensable in the area of critical infrastructure (CRITIS). As defined by the German government, this includes “organizations or facilities of critical importance to the state community, the failure or impairment of which would result in sustained supply shortages, significant disruptions to public safety, or other dramatic consequences.” CRITIS organizations must therefore protect themselves particularly well against cyber attacks – this is required by law. The EU launched the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP) back in 2006 and expanded and supplemented it in subsequent years. Member states are implementing the EU NIS directive in national law, Germany for instance with the IT Security Act (IT-SIG). Large economic nations have already developed regulatory bodies. In the U.S., for example, this is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and in Germany the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI). In Germany, the critical infrastructures are divided into 9 sectors. One of these is the water sector with the divisions of public water supply and wastewater disposal. It includes, for example, waterworks, pumping stations, water pipelines and networks, wastewater treatment plants, the sewerage system, and dam and flood protection facilities. They all play a critical role in our society. Attacks on the water supply could therefore hit a society to the core and, in the worst case, threaten human lives. Attacks on the wastewater disposal system are just as dangerous. If it no longer functions, the result would be considerable hygienic and health problems. Since the water infrastructure uses many IT systems and electronic control systems (ICS) nowadays, it becomes an attractive target for hackers. Incidents Show the Vulnerability of the Water Sector In recent years, there have been numerous attacks on water infrastructures worldwide. Fortunately, there have been no serious consequences so far. However, the attacks show that hackers are exploring how to take control of control systems and prepare further attacks. In 2013, for example, Iranian hackers attempted to penetrate the systems of the Bowman Avenue Dam near the town of Rye Brooke, near New York. The dam is used to control the flow of water after heavy rains and prevent flooding of the town. The hackers managed to gain control over the flood gates’ control system. However, as these were currently offline due to maintenance, the cyber criminals were fortunately unable to cause any damage. In March 2016, security specialist Verizon reported a cyber attack on a U.S. water utility known by the pseudonym Kemuri Water Company in its monthly Security Breach Report. Hackers had penetrated the SCADA platform. This allowed them to manipulate programmable logic controllers. They changed settings on the water flow and the amount of chemicals added for water treatment. Fortunately, the water utility quickly discovered the incident and was able to correct the settings without causing any major damage. For their attack, the hackers exploited an unpatched vulnerability in the customer payment portal. Between November 2016 and January 2017, cyber criminals hacked several wireless routers at a U.S. water agency. The routers were used to provide secure wireless access for pump station monitoring. Fortunately, however, the attackers were not looking to sabotage, but were targeting the agency’s Internet resources. Their bill rose from an average of $ 300 per month to a whopping $ 45,000 in December and $ 53,000 in January. For their attack, the hackers exploited a vulnerability in the routers of the manufacturer Sixnet. According to its own information, Sixnet had already made a patch available in May, but the authority had not installed it. Over the past year, Israel has been the victim of multiple cyber attacks on water supply and treatment facilities. In April, hackers undertook a major cyber attack on control and monitoring systems at wastewater treatment plants, pumping stations and sewers, the Israeli National Cyber Directorate (INCD) said in a statement. The INCD then demanded companies in the water sector to change passwords for all systems connected to the Internet-connected systems and to ensure that control system software is up-to-date. The hackers attempted to change the chlorine content of water at a water treatment plant. The attack was not successful. Had it been, it could have resulted in mild intoxication of the population served by the treatment plant. Back in June, there were two more attacks on Israel’s water facilities. This time, agricultural water pumps were affected. Although there has not yet been a comparable incident in Germany, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) reports about the implementation of the necessary organizational and technical precautions to prevent disruptions in its current report on the state of IT security in Germany. In the water sector, this reveals deficiencies in the areas of network separation, emergency management and physical security. In the reporting period from June 2019 to May 2020, there were several incidents in the water sector in Germany that were due to faults in control components. Remediation of the malfunctions was very lengthy and costly. Damage was avoided by operators acting prudently and having redundancies in place. Attack Points in the Water Sector IT and OT systems support the water cycle. In water production (1), quality control systems and digital pump control are used to manage water inflow from various sources towards water distribution (2). Digital metering and control methods monitor water pressure and quality in the water network and are thus part of the overall IT attack surface. In sewage systems (3), wastewater pumps and pre-treatments by filters, which are monitored at central points, are used. Water treatment (4) is a critical component due to the necessary digitalized control of physical, chemical and biological processes. Schematic representation of the water cycle with four stages: water production, water distribution, water disposal, and water treatment. Many networked IT systems and industrial control systems are therefore used in drinking water supply and wastewater disposal, enabling largely automated processes. Examples include sensors for temperature, flow rate, or chlorine content, remotely readable meters, and web portals and mobile apps for customers. Challenges for Cyber Resilience in the Water Sector To reduce their attack surface for cyber criminals, water sector organizations must consider the full range of networked systems, devices and applications. But this is not always easy. One problem is that the ICSs used in the water infrastructure come from different generations. Many of the older control systems were developed at a time when little or no consideration was given to cyber security. This leads to a heterogeneous, vulnerable IT landscape. Additionally, the high degree of automation and dependence on industrial controls makes water infrastructure particularly vulnerable to attack. Furthermore, the IT systems in use are becoming increasingly complex. This makes it difficult for companies to achieve a sufficient level of protection. The increasing networking of components within the field and control level as well as the control and process control technology increases the complexity even further.  At the same time, this increases the attack surface for hackers. They have more and more opportunities to penetrate networks, steal data or manipulate industrial controls. Even Previously Unexploited Vulnerabilities Should Not Be Underestimated A recent study by Kenna Security found that the total number of vulnerabilities discovered per year has increased from 4,100 in 2011 to 17,500 in 2021. On the other hand, the percentage of vulnerabilities exploited by hackers has not grown at the same rate. What is the reason for this? Cyber crime follows the same economic rules as any other business model: least investment for maximum result. But cyber crime also suffers from the same problem as the IT industry in general: experts are a limited resource. Companies cannot change this initial situation, but they can ensure that their attack surface is reduced. Tolerating a large attack surface, even if the vulnerabilities are not yet weaponized, is replacing control with gambling. As soon as it seems cheaper for cyber criminals or the outcome is promising, cyber crime will focus on vulnerabilities that are not yet weaponized, and the conversion of vulnerabilities into weapons will happen quickly. Even worse is the motivation of cyber terrorists, who have so far been fortunately unsuccessful due to a lack of expertise. It is unclear whether they will gain the necessary skills and if so, when. But they do not follow the rules of economics, which makes them less predictable in selecting targets and suitable weaponized vulnerabilities. In essence, there are two good general reasons why organizations should establish a process to manage and minimize their entire attack surface and not just focus on current (or likely) weaponizable vulnerabilities:

  • Pandemic risk: while it may not be attractive for a single criminal organization to invest in turning a more expensive vulnerability into a weapon, the more organizations choose not to do anything about that vulnerability, the more interesting it becomes. The fewer that are vaccinated, the better the pandemic spreads.
  • Automation risk: automating exploits is not only an attractive, cost-effective way to go. It significantly reduces the window of opportunity to respond with countermeasures.

Reduced Attack Surface with Vulnerability Management Regardless of how many vulnerabilities exist, managing damage and actively countering ongoing attacks becomes exponentially expensive for organizations if not accompanied by an ongoing process that identifies, manages and reduces the attack surface. Cyber resilience is a continuous process. It strengthens an organization’s ability to withstand an attack and enables it to continue to function during an attack. To achieve this, it is important to reduce the attack surface and thus stabilize the base. This means identifying vulnerabilities that could be exploited by an attacker and thus staying one step ahead of the attacker. 999 out of 1,000 vulnerabilities have been known for over a year. With vulnerability management, this means that these vulnerabilities can be identified and eliminated before they are exploited by an attacker. This greatly reduces the attack surface of the IT infrastructure. Vulnerability management systems are fully automated and, thanks to features such as schedules and custom scan configurations, offer users the ability to create complete vulnerability management processes that constantly scan for vulnerabilities. As a result, vulnerability management ensures more resilient systems in the long term.

Contact Free Trial Buy Here Back to Overview