Schwachstellenmanagement Archive - Page 2 of 6

Tag Archive for: Schwachstellenmanagement

October 2024 Threat Report: Ransomware Rising Defenders Must Respond

October was European Cyber Security Month (ECSM) and International Cybersecurity Awareness month with the latter’s theme being “Secure Our World”. It’s safe to say that instilling best practices for online safety to individuals, businesses and critical infrastructure is mission critical in 2024. At Greenbone, in addition to our Enterprise vulnerability management products, we are happy to make enterprise grade IT security tools more accessible via our free Community Edition, Community Portal and vibrant Community Forum to discuss development, features and get support.

Our core message to cybersecurity decision makers is clear: To patch or not to patch isn’t a question. How to identify vulnerabilities and misconfigurations before an attacker can exploit them is. Being proactive is imperative; once identified, vulnerabilities must be prioritized and fixed. While alerts to active exploitation can support prioritization, waiting to act is unacceptable in high risk scenarios. Key performance indicators can help security teams and executive decision makers track progress quantitatively and highlight areas that need improvement.

In this month’s Threat Tracking blog post, we will review this year’s ransomware landscape including the root causes of ransomware attacks and replay some of the top cyber threats that emerged in October 2024.

International Efforts to Combat Ransomware Continue

The International Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI), consisting of 68 countries and organizations (notably lacking Russia and China), convened in Washington, D.C., to improve ransomware resilience globally. The CRI aims to reduce global ransomware payments, improve incident reporting frameworks, strengthen partnerships with the cyber insurance industry to lessen the impact of ransomware incidents, and enhance resilience by establishing standards and best practices for both preventing and recovering from ransomware attacks.

Microsoft’s Digital Defense Report 2024 found the rate of attacks has increased so far in 2024, yet fewer breaches are reaching the encryption phase. The result is fewer victims paying ransom overall. Findings from Coveware, Kaseya, and the Chainanalysis blockchain monitoring firm also affirm lower rates of payout. Still, ransomware gangs are seeing record profits; more than 459 million US-Dollar were extorted during the first half of 2024. This year also saw a new single incident high; a 75 million US-Dollar extortion payout amid a trend towards “big game hunting” – targeting large firms rather than small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

What Is the Root Cause of Ransomware?

How are successful ransomware attacks succeeding in the first place? Root cause analyses can help: A 2024 Statista survey of organizations worldwide reports exploited software vulnerabilities are the leading root cause of successful ransomware attacks, implicated in 32% of successful attacks. The same survey ranked credential compromise the second-most common cause and malicious email (malspam and phishing attacks) third. Security experts from Symantec claim that exploitation of known vulnerabilities in public facing applications has become the primary initial access vector in ransomware attacks. Likewise, KnowBe4, a security awareness provider, ranked social engineering and unpatched software as the top root causes of ransomware.

These findings bring us back to our core message and highlight the importance of Greenbone’s industry leading core competency: helping defenders identify vulnerabilities lurking in their IT infrastructure so they can fix and close exploitable security gaps.

FortiJump: an Actively Exploited CVE in FortiManager

In late October 2024, Fortinet alerted its customers to a critical severity RCE vulnerability in FortiManager, the company’s flagship network security management solution. Dubbed “FortiJump” and tracked as CVE-2024-47575 (CVSS 9.8), the vulnerability is classified as “Missing Authentication for Critical Function” [CWE-306] in FortiManager’s fgfm daemon. Google’s Mandiant has retroactively searched logs and confirmed this vulnerability has been actively exploited since June 2024 and describes the situation as a mass exploitation scenario.

Another actively exploited vulnerability in Fortinet products, CVE-2024-23113 (CVSS 9.8) was also added to CISA’s KEV catalog during October. This time the culprit is an externally-controlled format string in FortiOS that could allow an attacker to execute unauthorized commands via specially crafted packets.

Greenbone is able to detect devices vulnerable to FortiJump, FortiOS devices susceptible to CVE-2024-23113 [1][2][3], and over 600 other flaws in Fortinet products.

Iranian Cyber Actors Serving Ransomware Threats

The FBI, CISA, NSA and other US and international security agencies issued a joint advisory warning of an ongoing Iranian-backed campaign targeting critical infrastructure networks particularly in healthcare, government, IT, engineering and energy sectors. Associated threat groups are attributed with ransomware attacks that primarily gain initial access by exploiting public facing services [T1190] such as VPNs. Other techniques used in the campaign include brute force attacks [T1110], password spraying [T1110.003], and MFA fatigue attacks.

The campaign is associated with exploitation of the following CVEs:

CVE-2024-24919 (CVSS 8.6), an information disclosure in Check Point Security Gateway VPNs
CVE-2024-21887 (CVSS 9.1), a command injection flaw in Ivanti Connect Secure and Ivanti Policy Secure
CVE-2024-3400 (CVSS 10), a command injection flaw in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS
CVE-2022-1388 (CVSS 9.8), an authentication bypass vulnerability in F5 BIG-IP and CVE-2020-5902 (CVSS 9.8), a Remote Code Execution (RCE) flaw in F5 BIG-IP Traffic Management User Interface
CVE-2020-1472 (CVSS 5.5), a privilege escalation vulnerability in Microsoft Netlogon Remote Protocol
CVE-2023-3519 (CVSS 9.8), an unauthenticated RCE flaw and CVE-2019-19781 (CVSS 9.8), a directory traversal vulnerability in Citrix Application Delivery Controller and Gateway
CVE-2019-11510 (CVSS 10), an unauthenticated file read and CVE-2019-11539 (CVSS 7.2), a Remote Command Execution flaw, both in Pulse Secure Pulse Connect Secure

Greenbone can detect all CVEs referenced in the campaign advisories, providing defenders with visibility and the opportunity to mitigate risk. Furthermore, while not tracked as a CVE, preventing brute force and password spraying attacks is cybersecurity 101. While many authentication services do not natively offer brute force protection, add-on security products can be configured to impose a lockout time after repeated login failures. Greenbone can attest compliance with CIS security controls for Microsoft RDP including those that prevent brute-force and password spraying login attacks.

Finally, according to the EU’s Cyber Resilience Act’s (CRA), Annex I, Part I (2)(d), products with digital elements must “ensure protection from unauthorized access by appropriate control mechanisms”, including systems for authentication, identity and access management, and should also report any instances of unauthorized access. This implies that going forward the EU will eventually require all products to have built-in brute force protection rather than relying on third-party rate limiting tools such as fail2ban for Linux.

Unencrypted Cookies in F5 BIG-IP LTM Actively Exploited

CISA has observed that cyber threat actors are exploiting unencrypted persistent cookies on F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) systems. Once stolen, the cookies are used to identify other internal network devices which can further allow passive detection of vulnerabilities within a network. Similar to most web-applications, BIG-IP passes an HTTP cookie between the client and server to track user sessions. The cookie, by default, is named BIGipServer<pool_name> and its value contains the encoded IP address and port of the destination server.

F5 BIG-IP is a network traffic management suite and LTM is the core module that provides load balancing and traffic distribution across servers. CISA advises organizations to ensure persistent cookies are encrypted. F5 offers guidance for setting up cookie encryption and a diagnostic tool, BIG-IP iHealth to detect unencrypted cookie persistence profiles.

While active exploitation increases the threat to organizations who have not remediated this weakness, the vulnerability has been known since early 2018. Greenbone has included detection for this weakness since January 2018, allowing users to identify and close the security gap presented by unencrypted cookies in F5 BIG-IP LTM since its disclosure.

New High Risk Vulnerabilities in Palo Alto Expedition

Several new high risk vulnerabilities have been disclosed in Palo Alto’s Expedition, a migration tool designed to streamline the transition from third-party security configurations to Palo Alto’s PAN-OS. While not observed in active campaigns yet, two of the nine total CVEs assigned to Palo Alto in October were rated with EPSS scores in the top 98th percentile. EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a machine learning prediction model that estimates the likelihood of a CVE being exploited in the wild within 30 days from the model prediction.

Here is a brief technical description of each CVE:

CVE-2024-9463 (CVSS 7.5, EPSS 91.34%): An OS command injection vulnerability in Palo Alto’s Expedition allows an unauthenticated attacker to run arbitrary OS commands as root in Expedition, resulting in disclosure of usernames, cleartext passwords, device configurations and device API keys of PAN-OS firewalls.
CVE-2024-9465 (CVSS 9.1, EPSS 73.86%): An SQL injection vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks Expedition allows an unauthenticated attacker to reveal sensitive database contents, such as password hashes, usernames, device configurations and device API keys. Once this information has been obtained, attackers can create and read arbitrary files on affected systems.

Four Critical CVEs in Mozilla Firefox: One Actively Exploited

As mentioned before on our Threat Tracking blog, browser security is critical for preventing initial access, especially for workstation devices. In October 2024, seven new critical severity and 19 other less critical vulnerabilities were disclosed in Mozilla Firefox < 131.0 and Thunderbird < 131.0.1. One of these, CVE-2024-9680, was observed being actively exploited against Tor network users and added to CISA’s known exploited catalog. Greenbone includes vulnerability tests to identify all affected Mozilla products.

The seven new critical severity disclosures are:

CVE-2024-9680 (CVSS 9.8): Attackers achieved unauthorized RCE in the content process by exploiting a Use-After-Free in Animation timelines. CVE-2024-9680 is being exploited in the wild.
CVE-2024-10468 (CVSS 9.8): Potential race conditions in IndexedDB allows memory corruption, leading to a potentially exploitable crash.
CVE-2024-9392 (CVSS 9.8): A compromised content process enables arbitrary loading of cross-origin pages.
CVE-2024-10467, CVE-2024-9401 and CVE-2024-9402 (CVSS 9.8): Memory safety bugs present in Firefox showed evidence of memory corruption. Security researchers presume that with enough effort some of these could have been exploited to run arbitrary code.
CVE-2024-10004 (CVSS 9.1): Opening an external link to an HTTP website when Firefox iOS was previously closed and had an HTTPS tab open could result in the padlock icon showing an HTTPS indicator incorrectly.

Summary

Our monthly Threat Tracking blog covers major cybersecurity trends and high-risk threats. Key insights for October 2024 include expanded efforts to counter ransomware internationally and the role proactive vulnerability management plays in preventing successful ransomware attacks. Other highlights include Fortinet and Palo Alto vulnerabilities actively exploited and updates on an Iranian-backed cyber attack campaign targeting public-facing services of critical infrastructure sector entities. Additionally, F5 BIG-IP LTM’s unencrypted cookie vulnerability, exploited for reconnaissance, and four new Mozilla Firefox vulnerabilities, one actively weaponized, underscore the need for vigilance.

Greenbone facilitates identification and remediation of these vulnerabilities and more, helping organizations enhance resilience against evolving cyber threats. Prioritizing rapid detection and timely patching remains crucial for mitigating risk.

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

11. November 2024/by Joseph Lee

Stop the Standstill: how Greenbone Helps Protect Against DoS Attacks

Blog

A DoS attack (Denial of Service) can mean a complete standstill: an important service fails, an application no longer responds or access to one’s own system is blocked. DoS attacks have a clear, destructive goal: to paralyze digital resources, preventing access to the legitimate users. The consequences of a DoS attack can be drastic: from downtime and business interruptions to financial losses and significant risks for the entire organization.

For several years, DoS attacks have been on the rise and have significantly impacted business, critical infrastructure and healthcare services. DoS attacks are also being leveraged in sophisticated cyber military campaigns and to extort victims into paying a ransom. What lies behind these attacks and how can you protect yourself?

Widening the Threat Landscape

With unauthorized access attackers may impose DoS by simply shutting down a system [T1529]. Otherwise, application logic flaws can allow a remote attacker to crash the system, or they may flood it with network traffic to exhaust its resources. Blocking account access [T1531], destroying data [T1485], or deploying ransomware [T1486] can further hinder system recovery [T1490] or distract defenders while other attacks take place. At the same time, disabled critical services increase vulnerability to further cyber attacks; if a virus scanner is stopped, malware can enter the network unimpeded; if backup services are down, full recovery from ransomware may be impossible.

DoS Attacks Often Leverage Known Weaknesses

DoS attacks often exploit weaknesses in network protocol specifications, improper protocol implementations, faulty logic in software applications, or misconfigurations. Some software flaws that could allow DoS attacks include:

Uncontrolled resource consumption
Buffer overflows
Memory leaks
Improper error handling
Asymmetric resource consumption (amplification)
Failure to release a resource after use

When vulnerabilities such as these are discovered, vendors rush to issue patches. However, only users who install them are protected. By scanning network and host attack surfaces, IT security teams can be alerted to DoS and other types of vulnerabilities. Once alerted, defenders can act by applying updates or adjusting vulnerable configurations.

Types of DoS Attacks

DoS attacks may employ a variety of different techniques, such as flooding networks with excessive traffic, exploiting software vulnerabilities, or manipulating application-level functions. Understanding how DoS attacks work and their potential impact is crucial for organizations to develop comprehensive defense strategies and minimize the risk of such disruptions.

The main categories of DoS attacks include:

Volume Based DoS Attacks: Volume-based DoS attacks overwhelm the target’s network bandwidth or compute resources such as CPU and RAM with high volumes of traffic, rendering the network unable to fulfill its legitimate purpose.
Application and Protocol DoS Attacks: These attacks target vulnerabilities within software applications or network protocols, which may reside at any layer of the protocol stack. Attackers exploit flaws in a protocol specification, flawed application logic, or system configurations to destabilize or crash the target.
Amplification DoS Attacks: Amplification attacks exploit specific protocols that generate a response larger than the initial request. Attackers send small queries to the target which responds with large packets. This tactic significantly amplifies the impact to the victim as high as 100 times the initial request size.
Reflection DoS Attacks: The attacker sends a request to a service, but replaces the source IP address with the victim’s IP. The server then sends its response to the victim, “reflecting” the attacker’s forged requests. Reflection attacks typically rely on UDP (User Datagram Protocol) due to its connectionless nature. Unlike TCP, UDP-based services do not automatically verify the source IP address of data they receive.
Distributed DoS Attacks (DDoS): DDoS attacks leverage large groups of compromised devices (often called a botnet) to send overwhelming amounts of traffic to a target. Botnets consist of hacked web servers or SOHO (Small Office, Home Office) routers from all over the world and are controlled centrally by the threat actor. The distributed nature of DDoS attacks make them much harder to mitigate, as the malicious traffic comes from many different IP addresses. This makes it difficult to distinguish legitimate users and infeasible to block the botnet’s large number of unique IP addresses.

Using Greenbone Against System Breakdown

Government cybersecurity agencies from all NATO countries such as Germany, the US, and Canada urge vulnerability management as a top priority for defending against DoS attacks. By scanning for known vulnerabilities, Greenbone helps close the door to DoS attacks and can identify when human error contributes to the problem by detecting known misconfigurations and CIS benchmark controls. Greenbone also updates its vulnerability tests daily to include detection for the latest vulnerabilities that can allow successful DoS attacks.

Greenbone includes the Denial of Service category of vulnerability tests and other test families also include DoS identification such as: database DoS tests, web application DoS tests, web server DoS tests, Windows DoS tests [1][2] and product specific DoS detection for many enterprise networking products such as Cisco, F5, Juniper Networks, Palo Alto and more. Using Greenbone to scan your networks and endpoints, you have access to over 4,900 tests capable of identifying exploitable DoS flaws.

Also, when Greenbone’s “Safe Checks” protection for a scan configuration is disabled, our scanner will conduct active attacks such as amplification DoS attacks. Since these tests present higher risk such as increased likelihood of service disruption, the Safe Checks feature is enabled by default, meaning this extended set of invasive scans are not conducted unless specifically configured to do so.

While no known cybersecurity mitigation can guarantee protection against all DoS attacks such as high volume DDoS attacks, the proactive identification and mitigation of known flaws removes the “low-hanging fruit” presented by exploitable services. By removing known vulnerabilities from its IT infrastructure, an organization can avoid becoming part of the problem as well – since hijacked IT assets are often used by attackers to conduct DDoS attacks against others.

Summary

Denial of Service (DoS) attacks aim to disrupt the availability of IT systems by overwhelming them with traffic or by exploiting known software vulnerabilities. Greenbone’s comprehensive vulnerability assessment solutions can identify potential entry points for DoS attacks, enabling organizations to strengthen their defenses and minimize their risk. By proactively managing vulnerabilities and employing continuous monitoring, Greenbone helps organizations to detect and mitigate the impact of potentially destructive DoS attacks.

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

6. November 2024/by Greenbone AG

… and Action! Greenbone at the it-sa Expo&Congress

Blog

Next week, it-sa, one of the largest platforms for IT security solutions, will kick off. On the opening day, October 22, 2024, from 11:00 a.m., Greenbone’s CEO Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner will show how companies can remain capable of managing crisis situations. With the “Action” in Forum 6-B “Be secure and stay secure” he shows ways out of the growing threats posed by cyber risks. It is not for nothing that his overview of the possibilities and potential of vulnerability management is not called a “lecture”, but “action”: action is needed!

Take Action!

In times when ransomware gangs are trying to extort tens of millions of dollars, it’s essential for companies and organizations to act as early as possible to ensure the security of their IT systems, data and business operations. Every investment in cyber security pays off many times over when the acquisition costs of a corresponding proactive solution are compared with the costs incurred by a security breach – the costs of paying ransom are devastating. As with any calculation of interest and compound interest: the earlier the investment, the more it pays off.

Greenbone’s solutions start at the earliest possible point in the history of cyber risks: the proactive detection of security vulnerabilities in your own IT infrastructure. Proactive vulnerability management goes hand in hand with a well-founded security strategy. Security intelligence is continuously provided, systems are monitored and results are compared and matched to known vulnerabilities.

Gaining a Knowledge Advantage

Because criminals make their attacks on their victims’ networks as impactful and widespread as possible in order to maximize their profits, IT managers should make it as difficult as possible in return. Vulnerability management offers companies a decisive advantage in the race against potential attackers. Vulnerabilities are often exploited before they are publicly announced, but once they are known, the race between attacker and the attacked enters the hot phase: attack vectors should be closed faster than cybercriminals can exploit them.

Manage Risks

To prevent the security risk from escalating, Greenbone solutions now access over 180,000 automated vulnerability tests. This reduces the potential attack surface by 99.9% compared to companies that do not use vulnerability management. These immense opportunities for risk minimization require prudent security management. The more vulnerabilities get uncovered, the more pressing the need for action becomes. Which IT systems require immediate help? Which assets and interaction paths in the company are particularly critical and which security measures should be prioritized?

Only those who have plausible answers to these questions will be able to keep the overall risk of cyber attacks as low as possible in the long term. Jan-Oliver Wagner will identify top priorities and how a corresponding “triage” can be practiced among data and systems in day-to-day operations in the it-sa action “Be secure and stay secure”. Join us!

Visit us at our booth 6-346 or make an appointment right away and get your free ticket to the trade show. We look forward to your visit!

Make an appointment!

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

16. October 2024/by Andreas Bergler

September 2024 Threat Tracking: Speed Before Safety?

Blog

A 2023 World Economic Forum report surveyed 151 global organizational leaders and found that 93% of cyber leaders and 86% business leaders believe a catastrophic cyber event is likely within the next two years. Still, many software vendors prioritize rapid development and product innovation above security. This month, CISA’s Director Jen Easterly stated software vendors “are building problems that open the doors for villains” and that “we don’t have a cyber security problem – we have a software quality problem”. Downstream, customers benefit from innovative software solutions, but are also exposed to the risks from poorly written software applications; financially motivated ransomware attacks, wiper malware, nation-state espionage and data theft, costly downtime, reputational damage and even insolvency.

However astute, the Director’s position glosses over the true cyber risk landscape. For example, as identified by Bruce Schneier back in 1999; IT complexity increases the probability of human error leading to misconfigurations [1][2][3]. Greenbone identifies both known software vulnerabilities and misconfigurations with industry leading vulnerability test coverage and compliance tests attesting CIS controls and other standards such as the BSI basic controls for Microsoft Office.

At the end of the day, organizations hold responsibility to their stakeholders, customers and the general public. They need to stay focused and protect themselves with fundamental IT security activities including Vulnerability Management. In September 2024’s Threat Tracking blog post, we review the most pressing new developments in the enterprise cybersecurity landscape threatening SMEs and large organizations alike.

SonicOS Exploited in Akira Ransomware Campaigns

CVE-2024-40766 (CVSS 10 Critical) impacting SonicWall’s flagship OS SonicOS, has been identified as a known vector for campaigns distributing Akira ransomware. Akira, originally written in C++, has been active since early 2023. A second Rust-based version became the dominant strain in the second half of 2023. The primary group behind Akira is believed to stem from the dissolved Conti ransomware gang. Akira is now operated as a Ransomware as a Service (RaaS) leveraging a double extortion tactic against targets in Germany and across the EU, North America, and Australia. As of January 2024, Akira had compromised over 250 businesses and critical infrastructure entities, extorting over 42 million US-Dollar.

Akira’s tactics include exploiting known vulnerabilities for initial access such as:

CVE-2024-37085 in VMware ESXi hypervisors
CVE-2020-3259 and CVE-2023-20269 in Cisco ASA/FTD
CVE-2021-21972 in VMware vCenter Server and VMware Cloud Foundation
CVE-2019-6693 and CVE-2022-40684 in Fortinet FortiOS

Greenbone includes tests to identify SonicWall devices vulnerable to CVE-2024-40766 [1][2] and all other vulnerabilities exploited by the Akira ransomware gang for initial access.

Urgent Patch for Veeam Backup and Restoration

Ransomware is the apex cyber threat, especially in healthcare. The US Human and Healthcare Services (HHS) reports that large breaches increased by 256% and ransomware incidents by 264% over the past five years. Organizations have responded with more proactive cybersecurity measures to prevent initial access and more robust incident response and recovery, including more robust backup solutions. Backup systems are thus a prime target for ransomware operators.

Veeam is a leading vendor of enterprise backup solutions globally and promotes its products as a viable safeguard against ransomware attacks. CVE-2024-40711 (CVSS 10 Critical), a recently disclosed vulnerability in Veeam Backup and Recovery is especially perilous since it could allow hackers to target the last line of protection against ransomware – backups. The vulnerability was discovered and responsibly reported by Florian Hauser of CODE WHITE GmbH, a German cybersecurity research company. Unauthorized Remote Code Execution (RCE) via CVE-2024-40711 was quickly verified by security researchers within 24 hours of the disclosure, and proof-of-concept code is now publicly available online, compounding the risk.

Veeam Backup & Replication version 12.1.2.172 and all earlier v12 builds are vulnerable and customers need to patch affected instances with urgency. Greenbone can detect CVE-2024-40711 in Veeam Backup and Restoration allowing IT security teams to stay one step ahead of ransomware gangs.

Blast-RADIUS Highlights a 20 Year old MD5 Collision Attack

RADIUS is a powerful and flexible authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) protocol used in enterprise environments to validate user-supplied credentials against a central authentication service such as Active Directory (AD), LDAP, or VPN services. Dubbed BlastRADIUS, CVE-2024-3596 is a newly disclosed attack against the UDP implementation of RADIUS, accompanied by a dedicated website, research paper, and attack details. Proof-of-concept code is also available from a secondary source.

Blast-RADIUS is an Adversary in The Middle (AiTM) attack that exploits a chosen-prefix collision weakness in MD5 originally identified in 2004 and improved in 2009. The researchers exponentially reduced the time required to spoof MD5 collisions and released their improved version of hashclash. The attack can allow an active AiTM positioned between a RADIUS client and a RADIUS server to trick the client into honoring a forged Access-Accept response despite the RADIUS server issuing a Access-Reject response. This is accomplished by computing an MD5 collision between the expected Access-Reject and a forged Access-Accept response allowing an attacker to approve login requests.

Greenbone can detect a wide array vulnerable RADIUS implementations in enterprise networking devices such as F5 BIG-IP [1], Fortinet FortiAuthenticator [2] and FortiOS [3], Palo Alto PAN-OS [4], Aruba CX Switches [5] and ClearPass Policy Manager [6], and on the OS level in Oracle Linux [7][8], SUSE [9][10][11], OpenSUSE [12][13], Red Had [14][15], Fedora [16][17], Amazon [18], Alma [19][20], and Rocky Linux [21][22] among others.

Urgent: CVE-2024-27348 in Apache HugeGraph-Server

CVE-2024-27348 (CVSS 9.8 Critical) is a RCE vulnerability in the open-source Apache HugeGraph-Server that affects all versions of 1.0 before 1.3.0 in Java8 and Java11. HugeGraph-Server provides an API interface used to store, query, and analyze complex relationships between data points and is commonly used for analyzing data from social networks, recommendation systems and for fraud detection.

CVE-2024-27348 allows attackers to bypass the sandbox restrictions within the Gremlin query language by exploiting inadequate Java reflection filtering. An attacker can leverage the vulnerability by crafting malicious Gremlin scripts and submitting them via API to the HugeGraph /gremlin endpoint to execute arbitrary commands. The vulnerability can be exploited via remote, adjacent, or local access to the API and can enable privilege escalation.

It is being actively exploited in hacking campaigns. Proof-of-concept exploit code [1][2][3] and an in-depth technical analysis are publicly available giving cyber criminals a head start in developing attacks. Greenbone includes an active check and version detection test to identify vulnerable instances of Apache HugeGraph-Server. Users are advised to update to the latest version.

Ivanti has Been an Open Door for Attackers in 2024

Our blog has covered vulnerabilities in Invati products several times this year [1][2][3]. September 2024 was another hot month for weaknesses in Ivanti products. Ivanti finally patched CVE-2024-29847 (CVSS 9.8 Critical), a RCE vulnerability impacting Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM), first reported in May 2024. Proof-of-concept exploit code and a technical description are now publicly available, increasing the threat. Although there is no evidence of active exploitation yet, this CVE should be considered high priority and patched with urgency.

However, in September 2024, CISA also identified a staggering four new vulnerabilities in Ivanti products being actively exploited in the wild. Greenbone can detect all of these new additions to CISA KEV and previous vulnerabilities in Ivanti products. Here are the details:

CVE-2024-29824 (CVSS 9.6 Critical): An SQL Injection vulnerability [CWE-89] in the Core server component of Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM) 2022 SU5 and prior. Exploitation allows an unauthenticated attacker with network access to execute arbitrary code. Exploit code is publicly available on GitHub. The vulnerability was initially disclosed in May 2024.
CVE-2024-7593 (CVSS 9.8 Critical): An Incorrect Implementation of an Authentication Algorithm [CWE-303] in Ivanti Virtual Traffic Manager (vTM) version 22 other than versions 22.2R1 or 22.7R2 can allow a remote attacker to bypass authentication and access the admin panel. CVE-2024-7593 was just disclosed in August 2024, yet exploit code is already available.
CVE-2024-8963 (CVSS 9.1 Critical): A Path Traversal [CWE-22] in Ivanti Cloud Services Appliance (CSA) version 4.6 and earlier allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to access restricted functionality. The vulnerability was both disclosed and added to CISA KEV on September 19, 2024. A fix had already been issued by Ivanti on September 10th, allowing users to remediate. However, Ivanti’s recommended mitigation is to upgrade to CSA 5.0. CSA version 4.6 reached its end-of-life (EOL) for security updates just last month in August 2024, however according to its EOL policy, Ivanti will issue security patches for one more year. When used in conjunction with CVE-2024-8190 described below, admin authentication can be bypassed and arbitrary RCE on CSA devices is possible.
CVE-2024-8190 (CVSS 7.5 High): An OS command injection vulnerability [CWE-78] in Ivanti Cloud Services Appliance (CSA) can allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain RCE. The attacker must have admin level privileges to exploit this vulnerability. Recommended mitigation is to upgrade to CSA 5.0 for continued support. Proof-of-concept exploit code is publicly available for CVE-2024-8190.

Summary

In this month’s Threat Tracking blog, we highlighted major cybersecurity developments including critical vulnerabilities such as CVE-2024-40766 exploited by Akira ransomware, CVE-2024-40711 impacting Veeam Backup and the newly disclosed Blast-RADIUS attack that could impact enterprise AAA. Proactive cybersecurity activities such as continuous vulnerability management and compliance attestation help to mitigate risks from ransomware, wiper malware, and espionage campaigns, allowing defenders to close security gaps before adversaries can exploit them.

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

10. October 2024/by Joseph Lee

August 2024 Threat Tracking: Threats on the Rise

Blog

The cybersecurity risk environment has been red hot through the first half of 2024. Critical vulnerabilities in even the most critical technologies are perpetually open to cyber attacks, and defenders face the continuous struggle to identify and remediate these relentlessly emerging security gaps. Large organizations are being targeted by sophisticated “big game hunting” campaigns by ransomware gangs seeking to hit the ransomware jackpot. The largest ransomware payout ever was reported in August – 75 million Dollar to the Dark Angels gang. Small and medium sized enterprises are targeted on a daily basis by automated “mass exploitation” attacks, also often seeking to deliver ransomware [1][2][3].

A quick look at CISA’s Top Routinely Exploited Vulnerabilities shows us that even though cyber criminals can turn new CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) information into exploit code in a matter of days or even hours, older vulnerabilities from years past are still on their radar.

In this month’s Threat Tracking blog post, we will point out some of the top cybersecurity risks to enterprise cybersecurity, highlighting vulnerabilities recently reported as actively exploited and other critical vulnerabilities in enterprise IT products.

The BSI Improves LibreOffice’s Mitigation of Human Error

OpenSource Security on behalf of the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) recently identified a secure-by-design flaw in LibreOffice. Tracked as CVE-2024-6472 (CVSS 7.8 High), it was found that users could enable unsigned macros embedded in LibreOffice documents, overriding the “high security mode” setting. While exploitation requires human interaction, the weakness addresses a false sense of security, that unsigned macros could not be executed when “high security mode” enabled.

KeyTrap: DoS Attack Against DNSSEC

In February 2024, academics at the German National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity (ATHENE) in Darmstadt disclosed “the worst attack on DNS ever discovered”. According to German researchers, a single packet can cause a “Denial of Service” (DoS) by exhausting a DNSSEC-validating DNS resolver. Dubbed “KeyTrap”, attackers can exploit the weakness to prevent clients using a compromised DNS server from accessing the internet or local network resources. The culprit is a design flaw in the current DNSSEC specification [RFC-9364] that dates back more than 20 years [RFC-3833].

Published in February 2024 and tracked as CVE-2023-50387 (CVSS 7.5 High), exploitation of the vulnerability is considered trivial and proof-of-concept code is available on GitHub. The availability of exploit code means that low skilled criminals can easily launch attacks. Greenbone can identify systems with vulnerable DNS applications impacted by CVE-2023-50387 with local security checks (LSC) for all operating systems.

CVE-2024-23897 in Jenkins Used to Breach Indian Bank

CVE-2024-23897 (CVSS 9.8 Critical) in Jenkins (versions 2.441 and LTS 2.426.2 and earlier) is being actively exploited and used in ransomware campaigns including one against the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI). Jenkins is an open-source automation server used primarily for continuous integration (CI) and continuous delivery (CD) in software development operations (DevOps).

The Command Line Interface (CLI) in affected versions of Jenkins contains a path traversal vulnerability [CWE-35] caused by a feature that replaces the @-character followed by a file path with the file’s actual contents. This allows attackers to read the contents of sensitive files including those that provide unauthorized access and subsequent code execution. CVE-2024-23897 and its use in ransomware attacks follows a joint CISA and FBI alert for software vendors to address path traversal vulnerabilities [CWE-35] in their products. Greenbone includes an active check [1] and two version detection tests [2][3] for identifying vulnerable versions of Jenkins on Windows and Linux.

2 New Actively Exploited CVEs in String of Apache OFBiz Flaws

Apache OFBiz (Open For Business) is a popular open-source enterprise resource planning (ERP) and e-commerce software suite developed by the Apache Software Foundation. In August 2024, CISA alerted the cybersecurity community to active exploitation of Apache OFBiz via CVE-2024-38856 (CVSS 9.8 Critical) affecting versions before 18.12.13. CVE-2024-38856 is a path traversal vulnerability [CWE-35] that affects OFBiz’s “override view” functionality allowing unauthenticated attackers Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the affected system.

CVE-2024-38856 is a bypass of a previously patched vulnerability, CVE-2024-36104, just published in June 2024, indicating that the initial fix did not fully remediate the problem. This also builds upon another 2024 vulnerability in OFBiz, CVE-2024-32113 (CVSS 9.8 Critical), which was also being actively exploited to distribute Mirai botnet. Finally, in early September 2024, two new critical severity CVEs, CVE-2024-45507 and CVE-2024-45195 (CVSS 9.8 Critical) were added to the list of threats impacting current versions of OFBiz.

Due to the notice of active exploitation and Proof-of-Concept (PoC) exploits being readily available for CVE-2024-38856 [1][2] and CVE-2024-32113 [1][2] affected users need to patch urgently. Greenbone can detect all aforementioned CVEs in Apache OFBiz with both active and version checks.

CVE-2022-0185 in the Linux Kernel Actively Exploited

CVE-2022-0185 (CVSS 8.4 High), an heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the Linux kernel, was added to CISA KEV in August 2024. Publicly available PoC-exploit-code and detailed technical descriptions of the vulnerability have contributed to the increase in cyber attacks exploiting CVE-2022-0185.

In CVE-2022-0185 in Linux’s “legacy_parse_param()” function within the Filesystem Context functionality the length of supplied parameters is not being properly verified. This flaw allows an unprivileged local user to escalate their privileges to the root user.

Greenbone could detect CVE-2022-0185 since it was disclosed in early 2022 via vulnerability test modules covering a wide set of Linux distributions including Red Hat, Ubuntu, SuSE, Amazon Linux, Rocky Linux, Fedora, Oracle Linux and Enterprise products such as IBM Spectrum Protect Plus.

New VoIP and PBX Vulnerabilities

A handful of CVEs were published in August 2024 impacting enterprise voice communication systems. The vulnerabilities were disclosed in Cisco’s small business VOIP systems and Asterisk, a popular open-source PBX branch system. Let’s dig into the specifics:

Cisco Small Business IP Phones Offer RCE and DoS

Three high severity vulnerabilities were disclosed that impact the web-management console of Cisco Small Business SPA300 Series and SPA500 Series IP Phones. While underscoring the importance of not exposing management consoles to the internet, these vulnerabilities also represent a vector for an insider or dormant attacker who has already gained access to an organization’s network to pivot their attacks to higher value assets and disrupt business operations.

Greenbone includes detection for all newly disclosed CVEs in Cisco Small Business IP Phone. Here is a brief technical description of each:

CVE-2024-20454 and CVE-2024-20450 (CVSS 9.8 Critical): An unauthenticated, remote attacker could execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system with root privileges because incoming HTTP packets are not properly checked for size, which could result in a buffer overflow.
CVE-2024-20451 (CVSS 7.5 High): An unauthenticated, remote attacker could cause an affected device to reload unexpectedly causing a Denial of Service because HTTP packets are not properly checked for size.

CVE-2024-42365 in Asterisk PBX Telephony Toolkit

Asterisk is an open-source private branch exchange (PBX) and telephony toolkit. PBX is a system used to manage internal and external call routing and can use traditional phone lines (analog or digital) or VoIP (IP PBX). CVE-2024-42365, published in August 2024, impacts versions of asterisk before 18.24.2, 20.9.2 and 21.4.2 and certified-asterisk versions 18.9-cert11 and 20.7-cert2. An exploit module has also been published for the Metasploit attack framework adding to the risk, however, active exploitation in the wild has not yet been observed.

Greenbone can detect CVE-2024-42365 via network scans. Here is a brief technical description of the vulnerability:

CVE-2024-42365 (CVSS 8.8 High): An AMI user with “write=originate” may change all configuration files in the “/etc/asterisk/” directory. This occurs because they are able to curl remote files and write them to disk but are also able to append to existing files using the FILE function inside the SET application. This issue may result in privilege escalation, Remote Code Execution or blind server-side request forgery with arbitrary protocols.

Browsers: Perpetual Cybersecurity Threats

CVE-2024-7971 and CVE-2024-7965, two new CVSS 8.8 High severity vulnerabilities in the Chrome browser, are being actively exploited for RCE. Either CVE can be triggered when victims are tricked into simply visiting a malicious web page. Google acknowledges that exploit code is publicly available, giving even low skilled cyber criminals the ability to launch attacks. Google Chrome has seen a steady stream of new vulnerabilities and active exploitation in recent years. A quick inspection of Mozilla Firefox shows a similar continuous stream of critical and high severity CVEs; seven Critical and six High severity vulnerabilities were disclosed in Firefox during August 2024, although active exploitation of these has not been reported.

The continuous onslaught of vulnerabilities in major browsers underscores the need for diligence to ensure that updates are applied as soon as they become available. Due to Chrome’s high market share of over 65% (over 70% considering Chromium-based Microsoft Edge) its vulnerabilities receive increased attention from cyber criminals. Considering the high number of severe vulnerabilities impacting Chromium’s V8 engine (more than 40 so far in 2024), Google Workspace admins might consider disabling V8 for all users in their organization to increase security. Other options for hardening browser security in high-risk scenarios include using remote browser isolation, network segmentation and booting from secure baseline images to ensure endpoints are not compromised.

Greenbone includes active authenticated vulnerability tests to identify vulnerable versions of browsers for Linux, Windows and macOS.

Summary

New critical and remotely exploitable vulnerabilities are being disclosed at record shattering rates amidst a red hot cyber risk environment. Asking IT security teams to manually track newly exposed vulnerabilities in addition to applying patches imposes an impossible burden and risks leaving critical vulnerabilities undetected and exposed. Vulnerability management is considered a fundamental cybersecurity activity; defenders of large, medium and small organizations need to employ tools such as Greenbone to automatically seek and report vulnerabilities across an organization’s IT infrastructure.

Conducting automated network vulnerability scans and authenticated scans of each system’s host attack surface can dramatically reduce the workload on defenders, automatically providing them with a list of remediation tasks that is sortable according to threat severity.

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

26. September 2024/by Joseph Lee

Greenbone Enterprise Products Lead all Network Vulnerability Scanners

Blog

OpenVAS began in 2005 when Nessus transitioned from open source to a proprietary license. Two companies, Intevation and DN Systems adopted the existing project and began evolving and maintaining it under a GPL v2.0 license. Since then, OpenVAS has evolved into Greenbone, the most widely-used and applauded open-source vulnerability scanner and vulnerability management solution in the world. We are proud to offer Greenbone as both a free Community Edition for developers and also as a range of enterprise products featuring our Greenbone Enterprise Feed to serve the public sector and private enterprises alike.

As the “old-dog” on the block, Greenbone is hip to the marketing games that cybersecurity vendors like to play. However, our own goals remain steadfast – to share the truth about our product and industry leading vulnerability test coverage. So, when we reviewed a recent 2024 network vulnerability scanner benchmark report published by a competitor, we were a little shocked to say the least.

As the most recognized open-source vulnerability scanner, it makes sense that Greenbone was included in the competition for top dog. However, while we are honored to be part of the test, some facts made us scratch our heads. You might say we have a “bone to pick” about the results. Let’s jump into the details.

What the 2024 Benchmark Results Found

The 2024 benchmark test conducted by Pentest-Tools ranked leading vulnerability scanners according to two factors: Detection Availability (the CVEs each scanner has detection tests for) and Detection Accuracy (how effective their detection tests are).

The benchmark pitted our free Community Edition of Greenbone and the Greenbone Community Feed against the enterprise products of other vendors: Qualys, Rapid7, Tenable, Nuclei, Nmap, and Pentest-Tools’ own product. The report ranked Greenbone 5th in Detection Availability and roughly tied for 4th place in Detection Accuracy. Not bad for going up against titans of the cybersecurity industry.

The only problem is, as mentioned above, Greenbone has an enterprise product too, and when the results are recalculated using our Greenbone Enterprise Feed, the findings are starkly different – Greenbone wins hands down.

Here is What we Found

Our Enterprise Feed Detection Availability Leads the Pack

According to our own internal findings, which can be verified using our SecInfo Portal, the Greenbone Enterprise Feed has detection tests for 129 of the 164 CVEs included in the test. This means our Enterprise product’s Detection Availability is a staggering 70.5% higher than reported, placing us heads and tails above the rest.

To be clear, the Greenbone Enterprise Feed tests aren’t something we added on after the fact. Greenbone updates both our Community and Enterprise Feeds on a daily basis and we are often the first to release vulnerability tests when a CVE is published. A review of our vulnerability test coverage shows they have been available from day one.

Our Detection Accuracy was far Underrated

And another thing. Greenbone isn’t like those other scanners. The way Greenbone is designed gives it strong industry leading advantages. For example, our scanner can be controlled via API allowing users to develop their own custom tools and control all the features of Greenbone in any way they like. Secondly, our Quality of Detection (QoD) ranking doesn’t even exist on most other vulnerability scanners.

The report author made it clear they simply used the default configuration for each scanner. However, without applying Greenbone’s QoD filter properly, the benchmark test failed to fairly assess Greenbone’s true CVE detection rate. Applying these findings Greenbone again comes out ahead of the pack, detecting an estimated 112 out of the 164 CVEs.

Summary

While we were honored that our Greenbone Community Edition ranked 5th in Detection Availability and tied for 4th in Detection Accuracy in a recently published network vulnerability scanner benchmark, these results fail to consider the true power of the Greenbone Enterprise Feed. It stands to reason that our Enterprise product should be in the running. Afterall, the benchmark included enterprise offerings from other vendors.

When recalculated using the Enterprise Feed, Greenbone’s Detection Availability leaps to 129 of the 164 CVEs on the test, 70.5% above what was reported. Also, using the default settings fails to account for Greenbone’s Quality of Detection (QoD) feature. When adjusted for these oversights, Greenbone ranks at the forefront of the competition. As the most used open-source vulnerability scanner in the world, Greenbone continues to lead in vulnerability coverage, timely publication of vulnerability tests, and truly enterprise grade features such as a flexible API architecture, advanced filtering, and Quality of Detection scores.

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

23. September 2024/by Greenbone AG

KPI for Measuring Vulnerability Management Performance

Blog

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/

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

12. September 2024/by Joseph Lee

NIS2: What you need to know

Blog

The deadline for the implementation of NIS2 is approaching – by October 17, 2024, stricter cybersecurity measures are to be transposed into law in Germany via the NIS2 Implementation Act. Other member states will develop their own legislature based on EU Directive 2022/2555. We have taken a close look at this directive for you to provide you with the most important pointers and signposts for the entry into force of NIS2 in this short video. In this video, you will find out whether your company is affected, what measures you should definitely take, which cybersecurity topics you need to pay particular attention to, who you can consult in this regard and what the consequences of non-compliance are.

Learn about the Cyber Resilience Act, which provides a solid framework to strengthen your organization’s resilience against cyberattacks. The ENISA Common Criteria will help you assess the security of your IT products and systems and take a risk-minimizing approach right from the development stage. Also prioritize the introduction of an information management system, for example by implementing ISO 27001 certification for your company. Seek advice about IT baseline protection from specialists recommended by the BSI or your local responsible office.

In addition to the BSI as a point of contact for matters relating to NIS2, we are happy to assist you and offer certified solutions in the areas of vulnerability management and penetration testing. By taking a proactive approach, you can identify security gaps in your systems at an early stage and secure them before they can be used for an attack. Our vulnerability management solution automatically scans your system for weaknesses and reports back to you regularly. During penetration testing, a human tester attempts to penetrate your system to give you final assurance about the attack surface of your systems.

You should also make it a habit to stay up to date with regular cybersecurity training and establish a lively exchange with other NIS2 companies. This is the only way for NIS2 to lead to a sustainable increase in the level of cyber security in Europe.

To track down the office responsible for you, follow the respective link for your state.

Austria	France	Malta
Belgium	Germany	Netherlands
Bulgaria	Greece	Poland
Croatia	Hungary	Portugal
Cyprus	Ireland	Romania
Czech Republic	Italy	Slovakia
Denmark	Latvia	Slovenia
Estonia	Lithuania	Spain
Finland	Luxembourg	Sweden

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

25. July 2024/by Greenbone AG

How CSAF 2.0 Advances Automated Vulnerability Management

Blog

IT security teams don’t necessarily need to know what CSAF is, but on the other hand, familiarity with what’s happening “under the hood” of a vulnerability management platform can give context to how next-gen vulnerability management is evolving, and the advantages of automated vulnerability management. In this article, we take an introductory journey through CSAF 2.0, what it is, and how it seeks to benefit enterprise vulnerability management.

Greenbone AG is an official partner of the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) to integrate technologies that leverage the CSAF 2.0 standard for automated cybersecurity advisories.

What is CSAF?

The Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) 2.0 is a standardized, machine-readable vulnerability advisory format. CSAF 2.0 enables the upstream cybersecurity intelligence community, including software and hardware vendors, governments, and independent researchers to provide information about vulnerabilities. Downstream, CSAF allows vulnerability information consumers to aggregate security advisories from a decentralized group of providers and automate risk assessment with more reliable information and less resource overhead.

By providing a standardized machine readable format, CSAF represents an evolution towards “next-gen” automated vulnerability management which can reduce the burden on IT security teams facing an ever increasing number of CVE disclosures, and improve risk-based decision making in the face of an “ad-hoc” approach to vulnerability intelligence sharing.

CSAF 2.0 is the replacement for the Common Vulnerability Reporting Framework (CVRF) v1.2 and extends its predecessor’s capabilities to offer greater flexibility.

Here are the key takeaways:

CSAF is an international open standard for machine readable vulnerability advisory documents that uses the JSON markup language.
CSAF aggregation is a decentralized model of distributing vulnerability information.
CSAF 2.0 is designed to enable next-gen automated enterprise vulnerability management.

The Traditional Process of Vulnerability Management

The traditional process of vulnerability management is a difficult process for large organizations with complex IT environments. The number of CVEs published each patch cycle has been increasing at an unmanageable pace [1][2]. In a traditional vulnerability management process, IT security teams collect vulnerability information manually via Internet searches. In this way, the process involves extensive manual effort to collect, analyze, and organize information from a variety of sources and ad-hoc document formats.

These sources typically include:

Vulnerability tracking databases such as NIST NVD
Product vendor security advisories
National and international CERT advisories
CVE numbering authority (CNA) assessments
Independent security research
Security intelligence platforms
Exploit code databases

The ultimate goal of conducting a well-informed risk assessment can be confounded during this process in several ways. Advisories, even those provided by the product vendor themselves, are often incomplete and come in a variety of non-standardized formats. This lack of cohesion makes data-driven decision making difficult and increases the probability of error.

Let’s briefly review the existing vulnerability information pipeline from both the creator and consumer perspectives:

The Vulnerability Disclosure Process

Common Vulnerability and Exposure (CVE) records published in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) represent the world’s most centralized global repository of vulnerability information. Here is an overview of how the vulnerability disclosure process works:

Product vendors become aware of a security vulnerability from their own security testing or from independent security researchers, triggering an internal vulnerability disclosure policy into action. In other cases, independent security researchers may interact directly with a CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) to publish the vulnerability without prior consultation with the product vendor.
Vulnerability aggregators such as NIST NVD and national CERTs create unique tracking IDs (such as a CVE ID) and add the disclosed vulnerability to a centralized database where product users and vulnerability management platforms such as Greenbone can become aware and track progress.
Various stakeholders such as the product vendor, NIST NVD and independent researchers publish advisories that may or may not include remediation information, expected dates for official patches, a list of affected products, CVSS impact assessment and severity ratings, Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) or Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE).
Other cyber-threat intelligence providers such as CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) and First.org’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) provide additional risk context.

The Vulnerability Management Process

Product users are responsible for ingesting vulnerability information and applying it to mitigate the risk of exploitation. Here is an overview of the traditional enterprise vulnerability management process:

Product users need to manually search CVE databases and monitor security advisories that pertain to their software and hardware assets or utilize a vulnerability management platform such as Greenbone which automatically aggregate the available ad-hoc threat advisories.
Product users must match the available information to their IT asset inventory. This typically involves maintaining an asset inventory and conducting manual matching, or using a vulnerability scanning product to automate the process of building an asset inventory and executing vulnerability tests.
IT security teams prioritize the discovered vulnerabilities according to the contextual risk presented to critical IT systems, business operations, and in some cases public safety.
Remediation tasks are assigned according to the final risk assessment and available resources.

What is Wrong with Traditional Vulnerability Management?

Traditional or manual vulnerability management processes are operationally complex and lack efficiency. Aside from the operational difficulties of implementing software patches, the lack of accessible and reliable information bogs down efforts to effectively triage and remediate vulnerabilities. Using CVSS alone to assess risk has also been criticized [1][2] for lacking sufficient context to satisfy robust risk-based decision making. Although vulnerability management platforms such as Greenbone greatly reduce the burden on IT security teams, the overall process is still often plagued by time-consuming manual aggregation of ad-hoc vulnerability advisories that can often result in incomplete information.

Especially in the face of an ever increasing number of vulnerabilities, aggregating ad-hoc security information risks being too slow and introduces more human error, increasing vulnerability exposure time and confounding risk-based vulnerability prioritization.

Lack of Standardization Results in Ad-hoc Intelligence

The current vulnerability disclosure process lacks a formal method of distinguishing between reliable vendor provided information, and information provided by arbitrary independent security researchers such as Partner CNAs. In fact, the official CVE website itself promotes the low requirements for becoming a CNA. This results in a large number of CVEs being issued without detailed context, forcing extensive manual enrichment downstream.

Which information is included depends on the CNA’s discretion and there is no way to classify the reliability of the information. As a simple example of the problem, the affected products in an ad-hoc advisory are often provided using a wide range of descriptors that need to be manually interpreted. For example:

Version 8.0.0 – 8.0.1
Version 8.1.5 and later
Version <= 8.1.5
Versions prior to 8.1.5
All versions < V8.1.5
0, V8.1, V8.1.1, V8.1.2, V8.1.3, V8.1.4, V8.1.5

Scalability

Because vendors, assessors (CNAs), and aggregators utilize various distribution methods and formats for their advisories, the challenge of efficiently tracking and managing vulnerabilities becomes operationally complex and difficult to scale. Furthermore, the increasing rate of vulnerability disclosure exacerbates manual processes, overwhelms security teams, and increases the risk of error or delay in remediation efforts.

Difficult to Assess Risk Context

NIST SP 800-40r4 “Guide to Enterprise Patch Management Planning” Section 3 advises the application of enterprise level vulnerability metrics. Because risk ultimately depends on each vulnerability’s context – factors such as affected systems, potential impact, and exploitability – the current environment of ad-hoc security intelligence presents a significant barrier to robust risk-based vulnerability management.

How Does CSAF 2.0 Solve These Problems?

CSAF documents are essential cyber threat advisories designed to optimize the vulnerability information supply chain. Instead of manually aggregating ad-hoc vulnerability data, product users can automatically aggregate machine-readable CSAF advisories from trusted sources into an Advisory Management System that combines core vulnerability management functions of asset matching and risk assessment. In this way, security content automation with CSAF aims to address the challenges of traditional vulnerability management by providing more reliable and efficient security intelligence, creating the potential for next-gen vulnerability management.

Here are some specific ways that CSAF 2.0 solves the problems of traditional vulnerability management:

More Reliable Security Information

CSAF 2.0 remedies the crux of ad-hoc security intelligence by standardizing several aspects of a vulnerability disclosure. For example, the affected version specifier fields allow standardized data such as Version Range Specifier (vers), Common Platform Enumeration (CPE), Package URL specification, CycloneDX SBOM as well as the product’s common name, serial number, model number, SKU or file hash to identify affected product versions.

In addition to standardizing product versions, CSAF 2.0 also supports Vulnerability Exploitability eXchange (VEX) for product vendors, trusted CSAF providers, or independent security researchers to explicitly declare product remediation status. VEX provides product users with recommendations for remedial actions.

The explicit VEX status declarations are:

Not affected: No remediation is required regarding a vulnerability.
Affected: Actions are recommended to remediate or address a vulnerability.
Fixed: Represents that these product versions contain a fix for a vulnerability.
Under Investigation: It is not yet known whether these product versions are affected by a vulnerability. An update will be provided in a later release.

More Effective Use of Resources

CSAF enables several upstream and downstream optimizations to the traditional vulnerability management process. The OASIS CSAF 2.0 documentation includes descriptions of several compliance goals that enable cybersecurity administrators to automate their security operations for more efficient use of resources.

Here are some compliance targets referenced in the CSAF 2.0 documentation that support more effective use of resources above and beyond the traditional vulnerability management process:

Advisory Management System: A software system that consumes data and produces CSAF 2.0 compliant advisory documents. This allows CSAF producing teams to assess the quality of data being ingested at a point in time, verify, convert, and publish it as a valid CSAF 2.0 security advisory. This allows CSAF producers to optimize the efficiency of their information pipeline while verifying accurate advisories are published.
CSAF Management System: A program that can manage CSAF documents and is able to display their details as required by CSAF viewer. At the most fundamental level, this allows both upstream producers and downstream consumers of security advisories to view their content in a human readable format.
CSAF Asset Matching System / SBOM Matching System: A program that integrates with a database of IT assets including Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) and can match assets to any CSAF advisories. An asset matching system serves to provide a CSAF consuming organization with visibility into their IT infrastructure, identify where vulnerable products exist, and optimally provide automated risk assessment and remediation information.
Engineering System: A software analysis environment within which analysis tools execute. An engineering system might include a build system, a source control system, a result management system, a bug tracking system, a test execution system and so on.

Decentralized Cybersecurity Information

A recent outage of the NIST National Vulnerability Database (NVD) CVE enrichment process demonstrates how reliance on a single source of vulnerability information can be risky. CSAF is decentralized, allowing downstream vulnerability consumers to source and integrate information from a variety of sources. This decentralized model of intelligence sharing is more resilient to an outage by one information provider, while sharing the burden of vulnerability enrichment more effectively distributes the workload across a wider set of stakeholders.

Enterprise IT product vendors such as RedHat and Cisco have already created their own CSAF and VEX feeds while government cybersecurity agencies and national CERT programs such as the German Federal Office For Information Security Agency (BSI) and US Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have also developed CSAF 2.0 sharing capabilities.

The decentralized model also allows for multiple stakeholders to weigh in on a particular vulnerability providing downstream consumers with more context about a vulnerability. In other words, an information gap in one advisory may be filled by an alternative producer that provides the most accurate assessment or specialized analysis.

Improved Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Prioritization

Overall, the benefits of CSAF 2.0 contribute to more accurate and efficient risk assessment, prioritization and remediation efforts. Product vendors can directly publish reliable VEX advisories giving cybersecurity decision makers more timely and trustworthy remediation information. Also, the aggregate severity (aggregate_severity) object in CSAF 2.0 acts as a vehicle to convey reliable urgency and criticality information for a group of vulnerabilities, enabling a more unified risk analysis, and more data driven prioritization of remediation efforts, reducing the exposure time of critical vulnerabilities.

Summary

Traditional vulnerability management processes are plagued by lack of standardization resulting in reliability and scalability issues and increasing the difficulty of assessing risk context and the likelihood of error.

The Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) 2.0 seeks to revolutionize the existing process of vulnerability management by enabling more reliable, automated vulnerability intelligence gathering. By providing a standardized machine-readable format for sharing cybersecurity vulnerability information, and decentralizing its source, CSAF 2.0 empowers organizations to harness more reliable security information to achieve more accurate, efficient, and consistent vulnerability management operations.

Greenbone AG is an official partner of the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) to integrate technologies that leverage the CSAF 2.0 standard for automated cybersecurity advisories.

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

23. July 2024/by Joseph Lee

CVE-2024-31497: PuTTY Forfeits Client ECDSA Private Keys

Blog

Public-key cryptography underpins enterprise network security and thus, securing the confidentiality of private keys is one of the most critical IT security challenges for preventing unauthorized access and maintaining the confidentiality of data. While Quantum Safe Cryptography (QSC) has emerged as a top concern for the future, recent critical vulnerabilities like CVE-2024-3094 (CVSS 10) in XZ Utils and the newly disclosed CVE-2024-31497 (CVSS 8.8) in PuTTY are here and now – real and present dangers.

Luckily, the XZ Utils vulnerability was caught before widespread deployment into Linux stable release branches. However, by comparison, CVE-2024-31497 in PuTTY represents a much bigger threat than the aforementioned vulnerability in XZ Utils despite its lower CVSS score. Let’s examine the details to understand why and review Greenbone’s capabilities for detecting known cryptographic vulnerabilities.

A Primer On Public Key Authentication

Public-key infrastructure (PKI) is fundamental to a wide array of digital trust services such as Internet and enterprise LAN authentication, authorization, privacy, and application security. For public-key authentication both the client and server each need a pair of interconnected cryptographic keys: a private key, and a public key. The public keys are openly shared between the two connecting parties, while the private keys are used to digitally sign messages sent between them, and the associated public keys are used to decrypt those messages. This is how each party fundamentally verifies the other’s identity and how a single symmetric key is agreed upon for continuous encrypted communication with an optimal connection speed.

In the client-server model of communication, if the client’s private key is compromised, an attacker can potentially authenticate to any resources that honor it. If the server’s private key is compromised, an attacker can potentially spoof the server’s identity and conduct Adversary-in-the-Middle (AitM) attacks.

CVE-2024-31497 Affects All Versions of PuTTY

CVE-2024-31497 in the popular Windows SSH client PuTTY allows an attacker to recover a client’s NIST P-521 secret key by capturing and analyzing approximately 60 digital signatures due to biased ECDSA nonce generation. As of NIST SP-800-186 (2023) NIST ECDSA P-521 keys are still classified among those offering the highest cryptographic resilience and recommended for use in various applications, including SSL/TLS and Secure Shell (SSH) applications. So, a vulnerability in an application’s implementation of ECDSA P-521 authentication is a serious disservice to IT teams who have otherwise applied appropriately strong encryption standards.

In the case of CVE-2024-31497, the client’s digital signatures are subject to cryptanalysis attacks that can reveal the private key. While developing an exploit for CVE-2024-31497 is a highly skilled endeavor requiring expert cryptographers and computer engineers, a proof-of-concept (PoC) code has been released publically, indicating a high risk that CVE-2024-31497 may be actively exploited by even low skilled attackers in the near future.

Adversaries could capture a victim’s signatures by monitoring network traffic, but signatures may already be publicly available if PuTTY was used for signing commits of public GitHub repositories using NIST ECDSA P-521 keys. In other words, adversaries may be able to find enough information to compromise a private key from publicly accessible data, enabling supply-chain attacks on a victim’s software.

CVE-2024-31497 affects all versions of PuTTY after 0.68 (early 2017) before 0.81 and affects FileZilla before 3.67.0, WinSCP before 6.3.3, TortoiseGit before 2.15.0.1, and TortoiseSVN through 1.14.6, and potentially other products.

On the bright side, Greenbone is able to detect the various vulnerable versions of PuTTY with multiple Vulnerability Tests (VTs). Greenbone can identify Windows Registry Keys that indicate a vulnerable version of PuTTY is present on a scan target, and has additional tests for PuTTY for Linux [1][2][3], FileZilla [4][5], and versions of Citrix Hypervisor/XenServer [6] susceptible to CVE-2024-31497.

Greenbone Protects Against Known Encryption Flaws

Encryption flaws can be caused by weak cryptographic algorithms, misconfigurations, and flawed implementations of an otherwise strong encryption algorithm, such as the case of CVE-2024-31497. Greenbone includes over 6,500 separate Network Vulnerability Tests (NVTs) and Local Security Checks (LSCs) that can identify all types of cryptographic flaws. Some examples of cryptographic flaws that Greebone can detect include:

Application Specific Vulnerabilities: Greenbone can detect over 6500 OS and application specific encryption vulnerabilities for which CVEs have been published.
Lack Of Encryption: Unencrypted remote authentication or other data transfers, and even unencrypted local services pose a significant risk to sensitive data when attackers have gained an advantageous position such as the ability to monitor network traffic.
Support For Weak Encryption Algorithms: Weak encryption algorithms or cipher suites no longer provide strong assurances against cryptanalysis attacks. When they are in use, communications are at higher risk of data theft and an attacker may be able to forge communication to execute arbitrary commands on a victim’s system. Greenbone includes more than 1000 NVTs to detect remote services using weak encryption algorithms.
Non-Compliant TLS Settings And HTTPS Security Headers: Greenbone has NVTs to detect when HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is not configured and verify web-server TLS policy.

Summary

SSH public-key authentication is widely considered one of the most – if not the most secure remote access protocol, but two recent vulnerabilities have put this critical service in the spotlight. CVE-2024-3094, a trojan planted in XZ Utils found its way into some experimental Linux repositories before it’s discovery, and CVE-2024-31497 in PuTTY allows a cryptographic attack to extract a client’s private key if an attacker can obtain roughly 60 digital signatures.

Greenbone can detect emerging threats to encryption such as CVE-2024-31497 and includes over 6,500 other vulnerability tests to identify a range of encryption vulnerabilities.

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

1. July 2024/by Joseph Lee

Tag Archive for: Schwachstellenmanagement

International Efforts to Combat Ransomware Continue

What Is the Root Cause of Ransomware?

FortiJump: an Actively Exploited CVE in FortiManager

Iranian Cyber Actors Serving Ransomware Threats

Unencrypted Cookies in F5 BIG-IP LTM Actively Exploited

New High Risk Vulnerabilities in Palo Alto Expedition

Four Critical CVEs in Mozilla Firefox: One Actively Exploited

Summary

Widening the Threat Landscape

DoS Attacks Often Leverage Known Weaknesses

Types of DoS Attacks

Using Greenbone Against System Breakdown

Summary

Take Action!

Gaining a Knowledge Advantage

Manage Risks

SonicOS Exploited in Akira Ransomware Campaigns

Urgent Patch for Veeam Backup and Restoration

Blast-RADIUS Highlights a 20 Year old MD5 Collision Attack

Urgent: CVE-2024-27348 in Apache HugeGraph-Server

Ivanti has Been an Open Door for Attackers in 2024

Summary

The BSI Improves LibreOffice’s Mitigation of Human Error

KeyTrap: DoS Attack Against DNSSEC

CVE-2024-23897 in Jenkins Used to Breach Indian Bank

2 New Actively Exploited CVEs in String of Apache OFBiz Flaws

CVE-2022-0185 in the Linux Kernel Actively Exploited

New VoIP and PBX Vulnerabilities

Cisco Small Business IP Phones Offer RCE and DoS

CVE-2024-42365 in Asterisk PBX Telephony Toolkit

Browsers: Perpetual Cybersecurity Threats

Summary

What the 2024 Benchmark Results Found

Here is What we Found

Our Enterprise Feed Detection Availability Leads the Pack

Our Detection Accuracy was far Underrated

Summary

Cyber Security KPI Support Core Strategic Business Goals

Types of Cyber Security Measures

Important Indicators for Vulnerability Management

Detection Performance Metrics

Remediation Performance Metrics

Vulnerability Scanner Effectiveness Metrics

Key Takeaways

References

NIS2 Umsetzung gezielt auf den Weg bringen!

What is CSAF?

The Traditional Process of Vulnerability Management

The Vulnerability Disclosure Process

The Vulnerability Management Process

What is Wrong with Traditional Vulnerability Management?

Lack of Standardization Results in Ad-hoc Intelligence

Scalability

Difficult to Assess Risk Context

How Does CSAF 2.0 Solve These Problems?

More Reliable Security Information

More Effective Use of Resources

Decentralized Cybersecurity Information

Improved Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Prioritization

Summary

A Primer On Public Key Authentication

CVE-2024-31497 Affects All Versions of PuTTY

Greenbone Protects Against Known Encryption Flaws

Summary

Products & Solutions

Service & Support

About us

Contact with us

Community