Tag Archives: Vulnerability management

InsightVM: Best Practices to Improve Your Console

Post Syndicated from Shane Queeney original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/09/12/insightvm-best-practices-to-improve-your-console/

InsightVM: Best Practices to Improve Your Console

Over the years, our recommendations and best practices for the InsightVM console have changed with the improvements and updates we’ve made to the system. Here are some of the most common improvements to help you get the most out of your InsightVM console in 2022.

Ensure everything is up to date

The first step to ensuring the health of your console is ensuring it is up to date. For InsightVM product updates, the typical release schedule is weekly on Wednesday, with the occasional out-of-band update. To stay on the latest version, you can set the update frequency to every 24 hours and set it to off-hours to perform that check. This will ensure the latest update is being applied and the console isn’t rebooting in the middle of the workday.

The InsightVM content updates include new vulnerabilities updated every 2 hours. As these don’t require a system reboot, it is recommended to leave them set to automatically update.

Make sure your scan engines are properly updated as well. As long as the scan engine has enough storage space and can reach the InsightVM console, it should be able to receive the latest update.

Unless you are on a Rapid7-hosted console, you are also in charge of updating the underlying operating system. That means not just applying the latest security patch, but also making sure the OS version itself is not end-of-life.

Lastly, you want to make sure you’re running the latest version of the InsightVM postgreSQL database — version 11.7. If you are still running version 9.4, this can cause some potential issues with the database, as well as general slowdown in the console and running reports.

With the latest InsightVM product updates, we also have a database auto-tune feature which automatically tunes based on the amount of RAM on the console server. This feature does not work if you are still on version 9.4. If you are on version 11.7, to activate it, go to Administration -> Run and then run the command tune assistant to make sure everything is tuned correctly. This will have a greater impact if you have 64GB RAM or above.

Check out this doc on tuning the PostgreSQL database for more detail. If you don’t feel comfortable tuning your own database, you can always contact Rapid7 support for assistance.

Reduce the number of sites

One of the largest improvements to the console is the increase in scan efficiency. Before October 2020, the discovery portion of the scan would only hit 1,024 assets simultaneously. Now, we are running discovery against 65,535 IPs at once. This leads to much faster discovery of larger IP ranges. Because of this, we recommend having fewer sites with larger IP scopes, such as /16 or /8 CIDR ranges.

The best way to organize these new, larger sites is based around function or geographical region – for example, having a separate site for all stores and one for all corporate ranges. Another example would be to break up the sites based on continents, or as large of a geographical region as possible.

Having fewer sites with a larger scope will help reduce the micromanagement of schedules and allow for ease of scalability when scanning more devices. For granular reporting, use asset groups, which are much more flexible than IP ranges and are designed to let you set the scope for reports and access management.

Prevent scan overlap

Besides having too many sites, the next-largest problem most consoles face is when scans overlap on the same scan engine. Having fewer sites helps with having fewer scheduled scans, but you should still be aware what scan engine is being used for those sites. Running a scan uses up RAM on the scan engine, and having too many scans running at once can cause scan slowdown or potentially engine crashes due to lack of memory.

The best-case scenario is to have one scan engine per site. That way, your sites can be scanned at the same time without any chance of them overloading a single engine. If you have some sites or locations that are much larger than others, you can always deploy more engines to that location and pool them together for even greater scan efficiency.

And remember, if you’re scanning more than 2,000 devices or have a segmented network, you should not be using the local scan engine, as that takes away resources from the console and PostgreSQL database.

Optimize scan templates

After making sure your scans aren’t overlapping on the same engine, the next step is to speed up the scans by optimizing your scan template. My colleague Landon Dalke wrote a great blog post documenting the best practices for your scan templates. Here are a few highlights from his post:

Assets scanned simultaneously per scan engine: Please use the following table for reference depending on how much CPU and RAM your scan engines have. Make sure your engines have a 1:4 ratio of CPU to memory for the best performance. Also, if your scan engines are virtual, make sure to reserve the allocated memory to avoid insufficient memory issues.

InsightVM: Best Practices to Improve Your Console

Send UDP packets to ports: We recommend disabling. It’s unlikely a device will be reachable that doesn’t respond to ICMP, ARP, or TCP but is somehow found only using UDP.

Do not treat TCP reset responses as live assets: We recommend enabling. This will help prevent “ghost assets” with no hostname or operating system from appearing, as some routers or IDS/IPS send TCP reset responses.

Nmap Services Detection: We recommend disabling this, as it can cause scans to take five to 10 times longer to run. Having a credential or agent on a device gives the same information.

Skip checks performed by the Insight Agent: We recommend enabling. If the agent is detected on a device, it will skip the vulnerability checks the agent is already performing, reducing scan time.

If all of your scan engines have the same resources, you can get away with needing one optimized scan template, reducing potential confusion and further simplifying your scan configurations.

After following these steps, your console should be in a much better place to reduce micromanagement and improve overall efficiency. If you need continued help and support, don’t hesitate to reach out to Rapid7 Support or your Customer Success Manager.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

Post Syndicated from John Hartman original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/09/06/5-steps-for-dealing-with-unknown-environments-in-insightvm/

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

Trying to deal with a large network can be difficult. All too often, engineers and admins don’t know the full scope of their environment and have trouble defining the actual subnets and the systems that exist on those subnets. They know of a couple /24 subnets here or there, but it’s very possible they’re missing a few. Once you get over a couple thousand assets, it can get fairly unruly pretty quick. Different teams own different servers and different network ranges. With regards to InsightVM, how do you know what sites create if you don’t even know what you own?

Luckily, in InsightVM, we can use a little bit of SQL, an overarching site with a ping sweep, and a nifty little tag to help get a handle on things – all outside any third-party software or  other management tools you may acquire to help you wrangle in your IP space. This method in InsightVM lets you find all live assets and identify all network spaces being used in your environment. Then, we can correlate this list against our known subnets and begin building out defined sites for scanning. As we create our known sites, we can start whittling down the number of unknown or undefined subnets.

1. Ping Sweep template

The first step is to create a new scan template dedicated solely to a ping sweep. This template isn’t scanning for any other services or ports, fingerprinting, or performing any other action –  it is simply sending pings to see what is alive. If we get a response back, we assume there is a live asset there, and this will help build out our known networks.

Create your template using these screenshots as guidance. Note that pretty much everything is off except ICMP and ARP pings, and we’re not treating TCP resets as live assets (we don’t want firewalls throwing us off). This scan should take just a few minutes to complete, as it’s not doing all the other functions that a typical scan can do.

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

2. Overarching site

The second step in this process is to create an overarching site. Give it a simple name like “Full Network” or whatever floats your boat. What’s important is that, within this site, you define as large of a network range as you know of. Think /16 here, or even a couple /16 networks. I don’t know your network, so use your judgment as to what you think exists. The idea is to be as broad as possible.

Now, within this site, set the default scan template as your “.Ping Sweep” template, as in my example above. Set your default scan engine or pool, and then save and scan.

What you should get back now is a full list of every live IP that exists within the defined network. If your defined network includes all the possible IP space, and we are assuming that all assets are online and able to respond, then you should have a pretty robust list of found assets.

3. Known Networks report

The next step is to go to the Reports tab and create a SQL Query Export. Throw the following SQL query in the definition, and scope the query from the GUI to your “Full Network” site.

WITH a AS (
SELECT
asset_id,
CONCAT(split_part(ip_address,'.',1),'.',split_part(ip_address,'.',2),'.',split_part(ip_address,'.',3),'.0/24') AS Network
FROM dim_asset
)
 
SELECT DISTINCT Network
FROM a
ORDER BY Network ASC

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

Save and run this report, and you will get a CSV output of all the /24 networks that have at least one live IP in them. You can use this CSV to compare to your known list of networks and start defining the actual sites within your environment. For example, if this report lists out 10.0.0.0/24 and you know that network as your main corporate server’s VLAN, then you can include that network into a separate site for vulnerability scanning.

4. Dynamic tagging

Now that we’ve started defining our known networks into sites, we need to create a dynamic tag that gets applied to all assets within any site. Now, in my example, I exclude the Rapid7 Insight Agents site, because depending on your environment and whether people are working from home, the Insight Agent may report the IP of their computer when logged onto their home network. We obviously can’t scan home networks, so we want to exclude this site to deter any of that bad data.

Create a dynamic tag with several lines to include each site. Note that if your site structure is large enough that you have hundreds of sites, you may want to use the API for this part, but we won’t go into that here – that’s a whole other conversation.

In my example below, I only have four sites – keep in mind I did not select the Rapid7 Insight Agents or my Full Network site. Make sure the operator is set to match ANY of the specified filters. Apply a tag called “Defined Network” to this criteria to tag all assets within a defined site.

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

You could also optionally create a secondary tag for “Undefined Networks,” but it’s not exactly necessary for this process. The below query would get you the Undefined Network assets. Basically, the query is just looking for any assets that don’t have the Defined Network tag and are not in the Rapid7 Insight Agents sites.

5 Steps for Dealing With Unknown Environments in InsightVM

5. Undefined Networks report

Now, we can set up our secondary SQL report to show us all networks that are not defined within the scope of a site. Once again, go to the Reports tab, create a SQL Query Export report, and throw this query into the definition.

WITH a AS (
SELECT
asset_id,
CONCAT(split_part(ip_address,'.',1),'.',split_part(ip_address,'.',2),'.',split_part(ip_address,'.',3),'.0/24') AS Network
FROM dim_asset
)
 
SELECT DISTINCT Network
FROM a
 
WHERE a.asset_id NOT IN (
SELECT DISTINCT asset_id
FROM dim_asset
LEFT JOIN dim_tag_asset USING (asset_id)
LEFT JOIN dim_tag USING (tag_id)
WHERE tag_name = 'Defined Network'
)
 
ORDER BY Network ASC

Save and run this report, and you will get a new CSV that lists out all /24 networks where there was at least one live asset found but the assets are within a /24 that has not been defined within the scope of a created site. You can use this CSV to work your way through those networks to determine what they are and who owns them and then ensure they are included in future or current sites.

Large environments with unknown network components can be difficult to manage and monitor for vulnerabilities. These five steps in InsightVM help make the process easier and more intuitive, so you can maintain better oversight and a stronger security posture within your environment.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Patch Tuesday – August 2022

Post Syndicated from Greg Wiseman original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/08/09/patch-tuesday-august-2022/

Patch Tuesday - August 2022

It’s the week of Hacker Summer Camp in Las Vegas, and Microsoft has published fixes for 141 separate vulnerabilities in their swath of August updates. This is a new monthly record by raw CVE count, but from a patching perspective, the numbers are slightly less dire. 20 CVEs affect their Chromium-based Edge browser, and 34 affect Azure Site Recovery (up from 32 CVEs affecting that product last month). As usual, OS-level updates will address a lot of these, but note that some extra configuration is required to fully protect Exchange Server this month.

There is one 0-day being patched this month. CVE-2022-34713 is a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability affecting the Microsoft Windows Support Diagnostic Tool (MSDT) – it carries a CVSSv3 base score of 7.8, as it requires convincing a potential victim to open a malicious file. The advisory indicates that this CVE is a variant of the “Dogwalk” vulnerability, which made news alongside Follina (CVE-2022-30190) back in May.

Publicly disclosed, but not (yet) exploited is CVE-2022-30134, an Information Disclosure vulnerability affecting Exchange Server. In this case, simply patching is not sufficient to protect against attackers being able to read targeted email messages. Administrators should enable Extended Protection in order to fully remediate this vulnerability, as well as the five other vulnerabilities affecting Exchange this month. Details about how to accomplish this are available via the Exchange Blog.

Microsoft also patched several flaws affecting Remote Access Server (RAS). The most severe of these (CVE-2022-30133 and CVE-2022-35744) are related to Windows Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol and could allow RCE simply by sending a malicious connection request to a server. Seven CVEs affecting the Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) on RAS were also fixed this month: six RCEs and one Denial of Service. If you have RAS in your environment but are unable to patch immediately, consider blocking traffic on port 1723 from your network.

Vulnerabilities affecting Windows Network File System (NFS) have been trending in recent months, and today sees Microsoft patching CVE-2022-34715 (RCE, CVSS 9.8) affecting NFSv4.1 on Windows Server 2022.

This is the worst of it. One last vulnerability to highlight: CVE-2022-35797 is a Security Feature Bypass in Windows Hello – Microsoft’s biometric authentication mechanism for Windows 10. Successful exploitation requires physical access to a system, but would allow an attacker to bypass a facial recognition check.

Summary charts

Patch Tuesday - August 2022
Patch Tuesday - August 2022
Patch Tuesday - August 2022
Patch Tuesday - August 2022

Summary tables

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-35802 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30175 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30176 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34687 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35773 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35779 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35806 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35772 Azure Site Recovery Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-35824 Azure Site Recovery Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-33646 Azure Batch Node Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-35780 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35781 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35799 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35775 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35801 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35807 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35808 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35782 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35809 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35784 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35810 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35811 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35785 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35786 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35813 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35788 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35814 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35789 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35815 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35790 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35816 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35817 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35791 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35818 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35819 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35776 Azure Site Recovery Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.2 Yes
CVE-2022-34685 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-34686 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35774 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-35800 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-35787 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-35821 Azure Sphere Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.4 Yes
CVE-2022-35783 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.4 Yes
CVE-2022-35812 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.4 Yes

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33649 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 9.6 Yes
CVE-2022-33636 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-35796 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-2624 Chromium: CVE-2022-2624 Heap buffer overflow in PDF No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2623 Chromium: CVE-2022-2623 Use after free in Offline No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2622 Chromium: CVE-2022-2622 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Safe Browsing No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2621 Chromium: CVE-2022-2621 Use after free in Extensions No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2619 Chromium: CVE-2022-2619 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Settings No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2618 Chromium: CVE-2022-2618 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Internals No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2617 Chromium: CVE-2022-2617 Use after free in Extensions API No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2616 Chromium: CVE-2022-2616 Inappropriate implementation in Extensions API No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2615 Chromium: CVE-2022-2615 Insufficient policy enforcement in Cookies No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2614 Chromium: CVE-2022-2614 Use after free in Sign-In Flow No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2612 Chromium: CVE-2022-2612 Side-channel information leakage in Keyboard input No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2611 Chromium: CVE-2022-2611 Inappropriate implementation in Fullscreen API No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2610 Chromium: CVE-2022-2610 Insufficient policy enforcement in Background Fetch No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2606 Chromium: CVE-2022-2606 Use after free in Managed devices API No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2605 Chromium: CVE-2022-2605 Out of bounds read in Dawn No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2604 Chromium: CVE-2022-2604 Use after free in Safe Browsing No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2603 Chromium: CVE-2022-2603 Use after free in Omnibox No No N/A Yes

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-35777 Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35825 Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35826 Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35827 Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34716 .NET Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.9 Yes

ESU Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30133 Windows Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35744 Windows Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34691 Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34714 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-35745 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-35752 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-35753 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-34702 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-35767 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-34706 Windows Local Security Authority (LSA) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34707 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35768 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35756 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35751 Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35795 Windows Error Reporting Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35820 Windows Bluetooth Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35750 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34713 Microsoft Windows Support Diagnostic Tool (MSDT) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability Yes Yes 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35743 Microsoft Windows Support Diagnostic Tool (MSDT) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35760 Microsoft ATA Port Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30194 Windows WebBrowser Control Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35769 Windows Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-35793 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.3 Yes
CVE-2022-34690 Windows Fax Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-35759 Windows Local Security Authority (LSA) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5 No
CVE-2022-35747 Windows Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 5.9 Yes
CVE-2022-35758 Windows Kernel Memory Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-34708 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-34701 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 5.3 No

Exchange Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-21980 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8 Yes
CVE-2022-24516 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8 Yes
CVE-2022-24477 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8 Yes
CVE-2022-30134 Microsoft Exchange Information Disclosure Vulnerability No Yes 7.6 Yes
CVE-2022-34692 Microsoft Exchange Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.3 Yes
CVE-2022-21979 Microsoft Exchange Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.8 Yes

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-34717 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-33648 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35742 Microsoft Outlook Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33631 Microsoft Excel Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.3 Yes

System Center Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33640 System Center Operations Manager: Open Management Infrastructure (OMI) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-34715 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35804 SMB Client and Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35761 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.4 Yes
CVE-2022-35766 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-35794 Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-34699 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-33670 Windows Partition Management Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34703 Windows Partition Management Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34696 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35746 Windows Digital Media Receiver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35749 Windows Digital Media Receiver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-34705 Windows Defender Credential Guard Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35771 Windows Defender Credential Guard Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35762 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35763 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35764 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35765 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-35792 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30144 Windows Bluetooth Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35748 HTTP.sys Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-35755 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.3 Yes
CVE-2022-35757 Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.3 Yes
CVE-2022-35754 Unified Write Filter Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.7 Yes
CVE-2022-35797 Windows Hello Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.1 Yes
CVE-2022-34709 Windows Defender Credential Guard Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6 Yes
CVE-2022-30197 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-34710 Windows Defender Credential Guard Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-34712 Windows Defender Credential Guard Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-34704 Windows Defender Credential Guard Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-34303 CERT/CC: CVE-20220-34303 Crypto Pro Boot Loader Bypass No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-34302 CERT/CC: CVE-2022-34302 New Horizon Data Systems Inc Boot Loader Bypass No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-34301 CERT/CC: CVE-2022-34301 Eurosoft Boot Loader Bypass No No N/A Yes

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2022 in Review

Post Syndicated from Randi Whitcomb original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/07/28/whats-new-in-insightvm-and-nexpose-q2-2022-in-review/

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2022 in Review

The Vulnerability Management team kicked off Q2 by remediating the instances of Spring4Shell (CVE-2022-22965) and Spring Cloud (CVE-2022-22963) vulnerabilities that impacted cybersecurity teams worldwide. We also made several investments to both InsightVM and Nexpose throughout the second quarter that will help improve and better automate vulnerability management for your organization. Let’s dive in!

New dashboard cards based on CVSS v3 Severity (InsightVM)

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) is an open standard for scoring the severity of vulnerabilities; it’s a key metric that organizations use to prioritize risk in their environments. To empower organizations with tools to do this more effectively, we recently duplicated seven CVSS dashboard cards in InsightVM to include a version that sorts the vulnerabilities based on CVSS v3 scores.The v3 CVSS system made some changes to both quantitative and qualitative scores. For example, Log4Shell had a score of 9.3 (high) in v2 and a 10 (critical) in v3.

Having both V2 and V3 version dashboards available allows you to prioritize and sort vulnerabilities according to your chosen methodology. Security is not one-size-fits all, and the CVSS v2 scoring might provide more accurate vulnerability prioritization for some customers. InsightVM allows customers to choose whether v2 or v3 scoring is a better option for their organizations’ unique needs.  

The seven cards now available for CVSS v3 are:

  • Exploitable Vulnerabilities by CVSS Score
  • Exploitable Vulnerability Discovery Date by CVSS Score
  • Exploitable Vulnerability Publish Age by CVSS Score
  • Vulnerability Count By CVSS Score Over Time
  • Vulnerabilities by CVSS Score
  • Vulnerability Discovery Date by CVSS Score
  • Vulnerability Publish Age by CVSS Score
What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2022 in Review

Asset correlation for Citrix VDI instances (InsightVM)

You asked, and we listened. By popular demand, InsightVM can now identify agent-based assets that are Citrix VDI instances and correlate them to the user, enabling more accurate asset/instance tagging.

Previously, when a user started a non-persistent VDI, it created a new AgentID, which then created a new asset in the console and consumed a user license. The InsightVM team is excited to bring this solution to our customers for this widely persistent problem.

Through the Improved Agent experience for Citrix VDI instances, when User X logs into their daily virtual desktop, it will automatically correlate to User’s experience, maintain the asset history, and consume only one license. The result is a smoother, more streamlined experience for organizations that deploy and scan Citrix VDI.

Scan Assistant made even easier to manage (Nexpose and InsightVM)

In December 2021, we launched Scan Assistant, a lightweight service deployed on an asset that uses digital certificates for handshake instead of account-based credentials; This alleviates the credential management headaches VM teams often encounter. The Scan Assistant is also designed to drive improved vulnerability scanning performance in both InsightVM and Nexpose, with faster completion times for both vulnerability and policy scans.

We recently released Scan Assistant 1.1.0, which automates Scan Assistant software updates and digital certificate rotation for customers seeking to deploy and maintain a fleet of Scan Assistants. This new automation improves security – digital certificates are more difficult to compromise than credentials – and simplifies administration for organizations by enabling them to centrally manage features from the Security Console.

Currently, these enhancements are only available on Windows OS. To opt into automated Scan Assistant software updates and/or digital certificate rotation, please visit the Scan Assistant tab in the Scan Template.

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2022 in Review

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2022 in Review

Recurring coverage (Nexpose and InsightVM)

Rapid7 is committed to providing ongoing monitoring and coverage for a number of software products and services. The Vulnerability Management team continuously evaluates items to add to our recurring coverage list, basing selections on threat and security advisories, overall industry adoption, and customer requests.

We recently added several notable software products/services to our list of recurring coverage, including:

  • AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux. These free Linux operating systems have grown in popularity among Rapid7 Vulnerability Management customers seeking a replacement for CentOS. Adding recurring coverage for both AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux enables customers to more safely make the switch and maintain visibility into their vulnerability risk profile.
  • Oracle E-Business Suite. ERP systems contain organizations’ “crown jewels” – like customer data, financial information, strategic plans, and other proprietary data – so it’s no surprise that attacks on these systems have increased in recent years. Our new recurring coverage for the Oracle E-Business Suite is one of the most complex pieces of recurring coverage added to our list, providing coverage for several different components to ensure ongoing protection for Oracle E-Business Suite customers’ most valuable information.
  • VMware Horizon. The VMware Horizon platform enables the delivery of virtual desktops and applications across a number of operating systems. VDI is a prime target for bad actors trying to access customer environments, due in part to its multiple entry points; once a hacker gains entry, it’s fairly easy for them to jump into a company’s servers and critical files. By providing recurring coverage for both the VMware server and client, Rapid7 gives customers broad coverage of this particular risk profile.

Remediation Projects (InsightVM)​​

Remediation Projects help security teams collaborate and track progress of remediation work (often assigned to their IT ops counterparts). We’re excited to announce a few updates to this feature:

Better way to track progress for projects

The InsightVM team has updated the metric that calculates progress for Remediation Projects. The new metric will advance for each individual asset remediated within a “solution” group. Yes, this means customers no longer have to wait for all the affected assets to be remediated to see progress. Security teams can thus have meaningful discussions about progress with assigned remediators or upper management. Learn more.

Remediator Export

We added a new and much requested solution-based CSV export option to Remediation Projects. Remediator Export contains detailed information about the assets, vulnerabilities, proof data, and more for a given solution. This update makes it easy and quick for the Security teams to share relevant data with the Remediation team. It also gives remediators all of the information they need.On the other hand, the remediators will have all the information they need. We call this a win-win for both teams! Learn more.

Project search bar for Projects

Our team has added a search bar on the Remediation Projects page. This highly requested feature empowers customers to easily locate a project instead of having to scroll down the entire list.

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q2 2022 in Review

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

To Maze and Beyond: How the Ransomware Double Extortion Space Has Evolved

Post Syndicated from Tom Caiazza original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/07/27/to-maze-and-beyond-how-the-ransomware-double-extortion-space-has-evolved/

To Maze and Beyond: How the Ransomware Double Extortion Space Has Evolved

We’re here with the final installment in our Pain Points: Ransomware Data Disclosure Trends report blog series, and today we’re looking at a unique aspect of the report that clarifies not just what ransomware actors choose to disclose, but who discloses what, and how the ransomware landscape has changed over the last two years.

Firstly, we should tell you that our research centered around the concept of double extortion. Unlike traditional ransomware attacks, where bad actors take over a victim’s network and hold the data hostage for ransom, double extortion takes it a step further and extorts the victim for more money with the threat (and, in some cases, execution) of the release of sensitive data. So not only does a victim experience a ransomware attack, they also experience a data breach, and the additional risk of that data becoming publicly available if they do not pay.

According to our research, there have been a handful of major players in the double extortion field starting in April 2020, when our data begins, and February 2022. Double extortion itself was in many ways pioneered by the Maze ransomware group, so it should not surprise anyone that we will focus on them first.

The rise and fall of Maze and the splintering of ransomware double extortion

Maze’s influence on the current state of ransomware should not be understated. Prior to the group’s pioneering of double extortion, many ransomware actors intended to sell the data they encrypted to other criminal entities. Maze, however, popularized another revenue stream for these bad actors, leaning on the victims themselves for more money. Using coercive pressure, Maze did an end run around one of the most important safeguards organizations can take against ransomware: having safely secured and regularly updated backups of their important data.

Throughout most of 2020 Maze was the leader of the double extortion tactic among ransomware groups, accounting for 30% of the 94 reported cases of double extortion between April and December of 2020. This is even more remarkable given the fact that Maze itself was shut down in November of 2020.

Other top ransomware groups also accounted for large percentages of data disclosures. For instance, in that same year, REvil/Sodinokibi accounted for 19%, Conti accounted for 14%, and NetWalker 12%. To give some indication of just how big Maze’s influence was and offer explanation for what happened after they were shut down, Maze and REvil/Sodinokibi accounted for nearly half of all double extortion attacks that year.

However, once Maze was out of the way, double extortion still continued, just with far more players taking smaller pieces of the pie. Conti and REvil/Sodinokibi were still major players in 2021, but their combined market share barely ticked up, making up just 35% of the market even without Maze dominating the space. Conti accounted for 19%, and REvil/Sodinokibi dropped to 16%.

But other smaller players saw increases in 2021. CL0P’s market share rose to 9%, making it the third most active group. Darkside and RansomEXX both went from 2% in 2020 to 6% in 2021. There were 16 other groups who came onto the scene, but none of them took more than 5% market share. Essentially, with Maze out of the way, the ransomware market splintered with even the big groups from the year before being unable to step in and fill Maze’s shoes.

What they steal depends on who they are

Even ransomware groups have their own preferred types of data to steal, release, and hold hostage. REvil/Sodinokibi focused heavily on releasing customer and patient data (present in 55% of their disclosures), finance and accounting data (present in 55% of their disclosures), employee PII and HR data (present in 52% of their disclosures), and sales and marketing data (present in 48% of their disclosures).

CL0P on the other hand was far more focused on Employee PII & HR data with that type of information present in 70% of their disclosures, more than double any other type of data. Conti overwhelmingly focused on Finance and Accounting data (present in 81% of their disclosures) whereas Customer & Patient Data was just 42% and Employee PII & HR data at just 27%.

Ultimately, these organizations have their own unique interests in the type of data they choose to steal and release during the double extortion layer of their ransomware attacks. They can act as calling cards for the different groups that help illuminate the inner workings of the ransomware ecosystem.

Thank you for joining us on this unprecedented dive into the world of double extortion as told through the data disclosures themselves. To dive even deeper into the data, download the full report.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Q2 InsightVM Release Update: Let’s Focus on Remediation for Just a Minute

Post Syndicated from Devin Krugly original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/07/14/q2-insightvm-release-update-lets-focus-on-remediation-for-just-a-minute/

Q2 InsightVM Release Update: Let’s Focus on Remediation for Just a Minute

Think of an endeavor in your life where your success is entirely dependent on the success of others. What’s the first example that comes to mind? It’s common in team sports – a quarterback and a wide receiver, a fullback and their goalie, an equestrian and their horse.

What if you narrow the scope to endeavors or activities at work? A little more difficult, right? A large project is an easy candidate, but those are generally distributed across many people over a long time period, which allows for mitigation and planning.

For those that make a living in cybersecurity, the example that immediately comes to mind is vulnerability management (VM). VM, which really falls under the heading of risk management, requires deft handling of executive communications, sometimes blurred to abstract away the tedious numbers and present a risk statement. At the same time, judicious management of vulnerability instances and non-compliant configurations that exceed organization thresholds – i.e., all the numbers – requires very detailed and often painstaking focus on the minutiae of a VM program. Then, layer in the need for situational awareness to answer context-specific questions like, “Are we vulnerable, and if so, do we need to act immediately?” or “Why did the security patch fail on only 37 of the 2184 target systems?” It becomes glaringly apparent that communication and alignment among all stakeholders – security team, IT operations, and business leadership – are paramount to achieve “dependent” success.

Based on customer feedback and directional input, we’re pleased to release two updates that are aimed at not only improving VM program success but also reducing the effort to get you there.

Remediation Project progress

In what may be the most exciting and warmly received update for some, we are releasing a new method to calculate and display progress for Remediation Projects. Historically, credit for patching and subsequent reporting of “percent complete” toward closing any one Remediation Project was only given when all affected assets for a single solution were remediated. So we’ve updated the calculation to account for “partial” credit. Now, remediation teams will see incremental progress as individual assets for specific solutions (i.e. patches) are applied. This is a much more accurate representation of the work and effort invested. It is also a much more precise indication of what additional effort is needed to close out the last few pesky hosts that have so far resisted your best remediation efforts.

For some, the scope and scale of risk management in the world of VM has outgrown original designs – more assets, more vulns. We’ve acted on the sage wisdom of many who have suggested such an update and made that available in Version 6.6.150

Q2 InsightVM Release Update: Let’s Focus on Remediation for Just a Minute

This update will affect all Remediation Projects, so we encourage teams to leverage this blog post to share the details behind this release as a heads-up and possibly improve relations with your teammates. It’s only by partnering and aligning on the effort involved that this “success dependency” becomes a power-up, rather than a power drain.

Remediator Export

I am particularly excited about this seemingly minor but mighty update, because I can remember having to script around or find automation to stitch together different source documents to produce what we have elected to refer to as a Remediator Export. The number of stakeholders and the diversity of teams involved in modern VM programs necessitate on-demand access to the supporting data and associated context. This export is for – you guessed it – the teams that have the heaviest lift in any VM program: the folks that push patches, update configs, apply mitigating controls, and are usually involved in all the necessary testing – the Remediators. Whether the catalyst for such a detailed export (26 data fields in all) is to troubleshoot a failed install or to simply have more direct access to vulnerability proof data the Remediator Export will offer improvements for nearly every remediation team.

Q2 InsightVM Release Update: Let’s Focus on Remediation for Just a Minute

You can access this upcoming solution based export from any Remediation Project peek panel. The Export to CSV dropdown now has an additional option that includes the data fields cited above and helps meet team’s needs where they are today.

Q2 InsightVM Release Update: Let’s Focus on Remediation for Just a Minute

The Remediator CSV file is accessible to anyone with permission to Remediation Projects, Goals, and SLAs and carries the following naming convention: “Project-Name_Solution-UUID.csv.” We are already thinking about options to provide similar capability at the Remediation Project level.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Patch Tuesday – July 2022

Post Syndicated from Greg Wiseman original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/07/12/patch-tuesday-july-2022/

Patch Tuesday - July 2022

Microsoft’s updates for July’s Patch Tuesday fix 86 CVEs, including two vulnerabilities in their Chromium-based Edge browser that were patched earlier in the month.

One 0-day vulnerability has been patched: CVE-2022-22047 affects all currently supported versions of Microsoft’s pervasive operating system. This is an elevation-of-privilege vulnerability in the Windows Client Server Runtime Subsystem (CSRSS), a critical service that is often impersonated by malware. An attacker with an already-existing foothold can exploit this vulnerability to gain SYSTEM-level privileges. Two similar vulnerabilities in CSRSS (CVE-2022-22049 and CVE-2022-22026) were also fixed, likely as a result of Microsoft’s investigation into the in-the-wild exploitation of CVE-2022-22047.

Four critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities were fixed today. CVE-2022-22029 and CVE-2022-22039 affect network file system (NFS) servers, and CVE-2022-22038 affects the remote procedure call (RPC) runtime. Although all three of these will be relatively tricky for attackers to exploit due to the amount of sustained data that needs to be transmitted, administrators should patch sooner rather than later. CVE-2022-30221 supposedly affects the Windows Graphics Component, though Microsoft’s FAQ indicates that exploitation requires users to access a malicious RDP server.

Over a third of today’s vulnerabilities (a whopping 32 CVEs) affect their Azure Site Recovery offering. Anyone making use of this VMWare-to-Azure backup solution should be sure to upgrade to version 9.49 of the Microsoft Azure Site Recovery Unified Setup, available in Update rollup 62.

Summary charts

Patch Tuesday - July 2022
Patch Tuesday - July 2022
Patch Tuesday - July 2022
Patch Tuesday - July 2022

Summary tables

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33676 Azure Site Recovery Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-33678 Azure Site Recovery Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-33674 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-33675 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-33677 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-30181 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33641 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33643 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33655 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33656 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33657 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33661 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33662 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33663 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33665 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33666 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33667 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33672 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33673 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33642 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33650 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33651 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33653 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33654 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33659 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33660 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33664 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33668 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33669 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33671 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33652 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.4 Yes
CVE-2022-33658 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.4 Yes

Azure Microsoft Dynamics vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30187 Azure Storage Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-2295 Chromium: CVE-2022-2295 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2294 Chromium: CVE-2022-2294 Heap buffer overflow in WebRTC No No N/A Yes

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33633 Skype for Business and Lync Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-33632 Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes

System Center vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33637 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Tampering Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33644 Xbox Live Save Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-22045 Windows.Devices.Picker.dll Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30222 Windows Shell Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.4 Yes
CVE-2022-30216 Windows Server Service Tampering Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22041 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30214 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-22031 Windows Credential Guard Domain-joined Public Key Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30212 Windows Connected Devices Platform Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes
CVE-2022-22711 Windows BitLocker Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.7 Yes
CVE-2022-22038 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-27776 HackerOne: CVE-2022-27776 Insufficiently protected credentials vulnerability might leak authentication or cookie header data No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-30215 Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes

Windows ESU vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30208 Windows Security Account Manager (SAM) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5 No
CVE-2022-30206 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30226 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22022 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22023 Windows Portable Device Enumerator Service Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-22029 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22039 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22028 Windows Network File System Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.9 Yes
CVE-2022-30225 Windows Media Player Network Sharing Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30211 Windows Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-21845 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes
CVE-2022-22025 Windows Internet Information Services Cachuri Module Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-30209 Windows IIS Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.4 Yes
CVE-2022-22042 Windows Hyper-V Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30223 Windows Hyper-V Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.7 Yes
CVE-2022-30205 Windows Group Policy Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-30221 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22034 Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30213 Windows GDI+ Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22024 Windows Fax Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22027 Windows Fax Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22050 Windows Fax Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22043 Windows Fast FAT File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30220 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22026 Windows CSRSS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22047 Windows CSRSS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Yes No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22049 Windows CSRSS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30203 Windows Boot Manager Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.4 Yes
CVE-2022-22037 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30202 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-30224 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-22036 Performance Counters for Windows Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-22040 Internet Information Services Dynamic Compression Module Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.3 Yes
CVE-2022-22048 BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.1 Yes
CVE-2022-23825 AMD: CVE-2022-23825 AMD CPU Branch Type Confusion No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-23816 AMD: CVE-2022-23816 AMD CPU Branch Type Confusion No No N/A Yes

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

How to Build and Enable a Cyber Target Operating Model

Post Syndicated from Rapid7 original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/07/08/how-to-build-and-enable-a-cyber-target-operating-model/

How to Build and Enable a Cyber Target Operating Model

Cybersecurity is complex and ever-changing. Organisations should be able to evaluate their capabilities and identify areas where improvement is needed.

In the webinar “Foundational Components to Enable a Cyber Target Operating Model,” – part two of our Cybersecurity Series – Jason Hart, Chief Technology Officer, EMEA, explained the journey to a targeted operating cybersecurity model. To build a cybersecurity program is to understand your business context. Hart explains how organisations can use this information to map out their cyber risk profile and identify areas for improvement.

Organisations require an integrated approach to manage all aspects of their cyber risk holistically and efficiently. They need to be able to manage their information security program as part of their overall risk management strategy to address both internal and external cyber threats effectively.

Identifying priority areas to begin the cyber target operating model journey

You should first determine what data is most important to protect, where it resides, and who has access to it. Once you’ve pinned down these areas, you can identify each responsible business function to create a list of priorities. We suggest mapping out:

  • All the types of data within your organisation
  • All locations where the data resides, including cloud, database, virtual machine, desktops, and servers
  • All the people that have access to the data and its locations
  • The business function associated with each area

Once you have identified the most recurring business functions, you can list your priority areas. Only 12% of our webinar audience said they were confident in understanding their organisation’s type of data.

Foundations to identify risk, protection, detection, response, and recovery

To start operationalising cybersecurity within a targeted area, we first set the maturity of each foundation. A strong foundation will help ensure all systems are protected from attacks and emerging threats. People play a critical role in providing protection and cyber resilience. They should be aware of potential risks so they can take appropriate actions to protect themselves and their business function.

1. Culture

A set of values shared by everyone in an organisation determines how people think and approach cybersecurity. Your culture should emphasise, reinforce, and drive behaviour to create a resilient workforce.

Every security awareness program should, at minimum, communicate security policy requirements to staff. Tracking employee policy acknowledgements will ensure your workforce is aware of the policy and helps you meet compliance requirements.

A quick response can reduce damages from an attack. Security awareness training should teach your workforce how to self-report incidents, malicious files, or phishing emails. This metric will prove you have safeguards in place. Tailor security awareness training to employees’ roles and functions to measure the effectiveness of each department.

2. Measurement

Measuring the ability to identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover from cybersecurity risks and threats enables a robust operating model. The best approach requires an understanding of what your most significant risks are. Consider analysing the following:

  • Phishing rate: A reduction in the phishing rate over time provides increased awareness of security threats and the effectiveness of awareness training. Leverage a phishing simulation to document the open rates per business function to track phishing risks.
  • The number of security breaches: Track and record the number of new incidents and breaches every month. Measure a monthly percentage increase or decrease.
  • Mean time to detect (MTTD): Calculate how long it takes your team to become aware of indicators of compromise and other security threats. To calculate MTTD, take the sum of the hours spent detecting, acknowledging, and resolving an alert, and divide it by the number of incidents.
  • Patching cadence: Determine how long it takes to implement application security patches or mitigate high-risk CVE-listed vulnerabilities.
  • Mean time to recovery (MTTR): Take the sum of downtime for a given period and divide it by the number of incidents. For example, if you had 20 minutes of downtime caused by two different events over two days, your MTTR is 20 divided by two, equalling 10 minutes.

3. Accountability

A security goal generates the requirement for actions of an entity to be traced uniquely to support non-repudiation, deterrence, fault isolation, intrusion detection, prevention, after-action recovery, and legal action.

The quality of your incident response plan will determine how much time passes between assigning tasks to different business functions. Calculate the mean time between business functions aware of a cyber attack and their response. Additionally, calculate the mean time to resolve a cyber attack once they have become aware by measuring how much time passes between assigning tasks to different business functions.

Also, consider recording how internal stakeholders perform with awareness or other security program efforts to track the effectiveness of training.

4. Process

Processes are critical to implementing an effective strategy and help maintain and support operationalising cybersecurity.

To determine your increase in the number of risks, link the percent differences in the number of risks identified across the business monthly. Identify accepted risks by stakeholders and vendors monthly, and hold regular information security forums between business functions to review levels of progress. It’s also wise to document meeting notes and actions for compliance and internal reference.

5. Resources

Ownership of cybersecurity across the business creates knowledge to manage, maintain and operate cybersecurity.

When determining the effectiveness of resources, analyse what levels of training you give different levels of stakeholders. For example, administration training will differ from targeted executives.

Calculate the engagement levels of input and feedback from previous awareness training and record positive and negative feedback from all stakeholders. Ensure that different parts of the business have the required skill level and knowledge within the business function’s scope. Use a skills matrix aligned to security domains to uncover stakeholders’ hidden knowledge or skill gaps.

6. Automation

The automation of security tasks includes administrative duties, incident detection, response, and identification risk.

Consider implementing automation in vulnerability management processes internally and externally to the business. Additionally, detect intrusion attempts and malicious actions that try to breach your networks. And finally, automate patch management actions on all assets within scope by assessing the number of patches deployed per month based on the environment, i.e. cloud.

A journey that delivers outcomes

A cyber-targeted operating model is a unique approach that provides defensibility, detectability, and accountability. The model is based on the idea that you can’t protect what you don’t know and aims to provide a holistic view of your organisation’s security posture. By identifying the most critical business functions and defining a process for each foundation, you can develop your cyber maturity over time.

To get the maximum benefit from Cybersecurity Series: Hackers ‘re Gonna Hack, watch Part One: Operationalising Cybersecurity to benchmark your existing maturity against the six foundational components. Watch Part 2: Foundational Components to Enable a Cyber Target Operating Model on-demand, or pre-register for Part Three: Cybersecurity KPIs to Track and Share with Your Board to begin mapping against your priority areas. Attendees will receive a complete list of Cybersecurity KPIs that align with the maturity level of your organisation.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Patch Tuesday – June 2022

Post Syndicated from Greg Wiseman original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/06/14/patch-tuesday-june-2022/

Patch Tuesday - June 2022

July’s Patch Tuesday sees Microsoft releasing fixes for over 60 CVEs. Top of mind for many administrators this month is CVE-2022-30190, also known as Follina, which was observed being exploited in the wild at the end of May. Microsoft provided mitigation instructions (disabling the MSDT URL protocol via the registry), but actual patches were not available until today’s cumulative Windows Updates. Even if the mitigation was previously applied, installing the updates is highly recommended.

None of the other CVEs being addressed this month have been previously disclosed or seen exploited yet. However, it won’t be long before attackers start looking at CVE-2022-30136, a critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability affecting the Windows Network File System (NFS). Last month, Microsoft fixed a similar vulnerability (CVE-2022-26937) affecting NFS v2.0 and v3.0. CVE-2022-30136, on the other hand, is only exploitable in NFS v4.1. Microsoft has provided mitigation guidance to disable NFS v4.1, which should only be done if the May updates fixing previous NFS versions have been applied. Again, even if the mitigation has been put into place, best to patch sooner rather than later.

Also reminiscent of last month is CVE-2022-30139, a critical RCE in LDAP carrying a CVSSv3 base score of 7.1, which again is only exploitable if the MaxReceiveBuffer LDAP policy value is set higher than the default. Rounding out the critical RCEs for July is CVE-2022-30163, which could allow a malicious application running on a Hyper-V guest to execute code on the host OS.

The other big news this month is the end of support for Internet Explorer 11 (IE11) on Windows 10 Semi-Annual Channels and Windows 10 IoT Semi-Annual Channels, as Microsoft encourages users to adopt the Chromium-based Edge browser (which saw fixes for 5 CVEs this month). Internet Explorer 11 on other versions of Windows should continue receiving security updates and technical support based on the OS support lifecycle, so this is only the beginning of the end for the legacy browser.

Summary charts

Patch Tuesday - June 2022
Patch Tuesday - June 2022
Patch Tuesday - June 2022
Patch Tuesday - June 2022

Summary tables

Apps vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30168 Microsoft Photos App Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30137 Azure Service Fabric Container Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.7 Yes
CVE-2022-30177 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30178 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30179 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30180 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Azure System Center vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29149 Azure Open Management Infrastructure (OMI) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-22021 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-2011 Chromium: CVE-2022-2011 Use after free in ANGLE No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2010 Chromium: CVE-2022-2010 Out of bounds read in compositing No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2008 Chromium: CVE-2022-2008 Out of bounds memory access in WebGL No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2007 Chromium: CVE-2022-2007 Use after free in WebGPU No No N/A Yes

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30184 .NET and Visual Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes

ESU Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30140 Windows iSCSI Discovery Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30152 Windows Network Address Translation (NAT) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-30135 Windows Media Center Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30153 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30161 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30141 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30143 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30149 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30146 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30155 Windows Kernel Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30147 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30163 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30142 Windows File History Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30151 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-30160 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30166 Local Security Authority Subsystem Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-21166 Intel: CVE-2022-21166 Device Register Partial Write (DRPW) No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-21127 Intel: CVE-2022-21127 Special Register Buffer Data Sampling Update (SRBDS Update) No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-21125 Intel: CVE-2022-21125 Shared Buffers Data Sampling (SBDS) No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-21123 Intel: CVE-2022-21123 Shared Buffers Data Read (SBDR) No No N/A Yes

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30157 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30158 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30174 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.4 Yes
CVE-2022-30159 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30171 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30172 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30173 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

SQL Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29143 Microsoft SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-32230 Windows SMB Denial of Service Vulnerability No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-30136 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30139 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30162 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30165 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30145 Windows Encrypting File System (EFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30148 Windows Desired State Configuration (DSC) Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30150 Windows Defender Remote Credential Guard Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30132 Windows Container Manager Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30131 Windows Container Isolation FS Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30189 Windows Autopilot Device Management and Enrollment Client Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30154 Microsoft File Server Shadow Copy Agent Service (RVSS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 5.3 Yes
CVE-2022-30164 Kerberos AppContainer Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 8.4 Yes
CVE-2022-29111 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22018 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30188 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29119 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30167 AV1 Video Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30193 AV1 Video Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Additional reading:

The Hidden Harm of Silent Patches

Post Syndicated from Tod Beardsley original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/06/06/the-hidden-harm-of-silent-patches/

The Hidden Harm of Silent Patches

Hey all. I’m about to head off to RSAC 2022, but I wanted to jot down some thoughts I’ve had lately on a particularly squirrelly issue that comes up occasionally in coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD) — the issue of silent patches, and how they tend to help focused attackers and harm IT protectors.

In the bad old days, most major software vendors were rather notorious for sweeping vulnerability reports under the rug. They made it difficult for legitimate researchers to report vulnerabilities, often by accident, occasionally on purpose. Researchers would report bugs, and those reports would fester in unobserved space, then suddenly the proof-of-concept exploit wouldn’t work any more. This was (and is) the standard silent patching model. No credit, no explanation, no CVE ID, nothing.

The justification for this approach seems pretty sensible, though. Why would a vendor go out of their way to explain what a security fix does? After all, if you know how the patch works, then you have a pretty good guess at the root cause of the vulnerability and, therefore, how the exploit works. So, by publicizing these patch details, you’re effectively leading attackers to the goods, based on your own documentation. Not cool, right?

So, the natural conclusion is that by limiting the technical details of a given vulnerability to merely the patch contents, and by withholding those details explained in plan languages and proof-of-concept exploit code and screenshots and videos and all the rest, you are limiting the general knowledge pool of people who actually understand the vulnerability and how to exploit it.

Unpacking the silent patch

This sounds like a great plan, but there’s a catch. When a software company releases a patch for software, in nearly all cases, they’re not using exotic packers, they’re not employing anti-forensics, and even if the patch data is encrypted and obfuscated, at some point it’s got to modify the code on the running software — which means that it’s all available to anyone who has a running instance of the patched software and knows how to use a debugger and a disassembler. And who uses debuggers to inspect the effects of patches? Exploit developers, pretty much exclusively.

Knowing this, let’s modify the expectations of the silent patch strategy: When you silently patch, you are intending to limit knowledge of the patched vulnerability to skilled exploit devs.

It’s still true that you’re excluding the casual attacker (or “script kiddie,” in the common parlance), and that’s great and desirable. However, you’re also excluding a huge population of IT protectors: penetration testers who are paid to write and run exploits to test defenses leap to mind, in addition to the folks who write and deploy defensive technologies like vulnerability management, intrusion detection and prevention, incident detection, and all the rest. You also exclude tech journalists, academics, and policy makers who want to understand and communicate the nature of software vulnerabilities, but who aren’t likely to bust out a disassembler.

Most significantly, you’re excluding the most important audience for your patch: the regular IT administrators and managers who need to sort out the incoming flow of patches based on some risk and severity criteria and make the call for downtime and update scheduling based on that criteria. Not all vulnerabilities are equal, and while protectors want to get around to all of them, they need to figure out which ones to apply today and which ones can wait for the next maintenance cycle.

By the way, it’s true that some of these IT professionals also have the capability to reverse-engineer your patch. In practice, people who are only interested in keeping IT humming never, ever reverse patches to see if they’re worth applying. It’s way too complicated and time-consuming. I’ve never seen a case where this is part of the decision-making process to patch now or later.

Don’t leave defenders in the dark

So now, let’s reexamine the case for silent patching yet again: When you silently patch, you are communicating vulnerability details, exclusively, to skilled, criminal attackers who are specifically targeting your product, while leaving your customers in the dark. You are intentionally withholding information from casual attackers, secondary defenders, and your customers and users who are desperate to make informed security engineering decisions involving your product or project. Oh, and let’s not forget, you’re also limiting knowledge about these fixed vulnerabilities from future employees and contributors, who very well might re-introduce the same or similar bugs in your product down the road. After all, the details are secret, even from future-you.

All this is to say, silent patching is tantamount to full disclosure to a very small audience who mostly want to hurt you and your users. Fully documented patches reach the much, much larger audience of people, present and future, who want to help you and your users. While it’s true that you are also offering educational opportunities to casual attackers along the way, I believe the global population of casual attackers is much, much smaller than your legitimate users and all the secondary and tertiary defenders who are on your side.

So, next time a vulnerability researcher states their intention of publishing details about their reported (and now patched) vulnerability, try to examine your urge to keep those details under wraps, and maybe even encourage them to be honest and transparent with their findings. The alternative is to build up the operational capabilities of the true criminal and espionage enterprises while degrading the decision-making power of IT protectors.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Maximize Your VM Investment: Fix Vulnerabilities Faster With Automox + Rapid7

Post Syndicated from Nicholas Colyer original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/05/16/maximize-your-vm-investment-fix-vulnerabilities-faster-with-automox-rapid7/

Maximize Your VM Investment: Fix Vulnerabilities Faster With Automox + Rapid7

The Rapid7 InsightConnect Extension library is getting bigger! We’ve teamed up with IT operations platform, Automox, to release a new plugin and technology alliance that closes the aperture of attack for vulnerability findings and automates remediation. Using the Automox Plugin for Rapid7 InsightConnect in conjunction with InsightVM, customers are able to:

  • Automate discovery-to-remediation of vulnerability findings
  • Query Automox device details via Slack or Microsoft Teams

Getting started with Automox within InsightConnect

Automox is an IT Operations platform that fully automates the process of endpoint management across Windows, macOS, Linux, and third-party software — including Adobe, Java, Firefox, Chrome, and Windows.

The Automox InsightConnect Plugin allows mutual customers of Rapid7 and Automox to expand their capabilities between products, ultimately streamlining cyber security outcomes and operational effectiveness. Seamlessly transition CVE-based vulnerability findings through discovery to remediation, and perform device queries without needing to leave Slack or Microsoft Teams!

Example workflows you can start leveraging now with the Automox Plugin

  • Generate Rapid7 InsightVM Report and Upload to Automox Vulnerability Sync: An example workflow that leverages threat context for assets and prioritizes them for remediation. An InsightVM report is automatically generated and uploaded using Automox’s Vulnerability Sync for easy remediation, saving internal teams precious time and effort in managing  critically emerging threats – from start to finish.
  • Automox Device Lookup from Microsoft Teams: An example workflow that lets a user query a device in Automox directly from Microsoft Teams.
  • Automox Device Lookup from Slack: An example workflow that lets a user query a device in Automox directly from Slack.

For more information or to start using this plugin, access and install the Automox Plugin for Rapid7 InsightConnect through the Rapid7 Extension Library.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Patch Tuesday – May 2022

Post Syndicated from Greg Wiseman original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/05/10/patch-tuesday-may-2022/

Patch Tuesday - May 2022

This month is par for the course in terms of both number and severity of vulnerabilities being patched by Microsoft. That means there’s plenty of work to be done by system and network administrators, as usual.

There is one 0-day this month: CVE-2022-26925, a Spoofing vulnerability in the Windows Local Security Authority (LSA) subsystem, which allows attackers able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack to force domain controllers to authenticate to the attacker using NTLM authentication. This is very bad news when used in conjunction with an NTLM relay attack, potentially leading to remote code execution (RCE). This bug affects all supported versions of Windows, but Domain Controllers should be patched on a priority basis before updating other servers.

Two other CVEs were also publicly disclosed before today’s releases, though they have not yet been seen exploited in the wild. CVE-2022-22713 is a denial-of-service vulnerability that affects Hyper-V servers running relatively recent versions of Windows (20H2 and later). CVE-2022-29972 is a Critical RCE that affects the Amazon Redshift ODBC driver used by Microsoft’s Self-hosted Integration Runtime (a client agent that enables on-premises data sources to exchange data with cloud services such as Azure Data Factory and Azure Synapse Pipelines). This vulnerability also prompted Microsoft to publish their first guidance-based advisory of the year, ADV220001, indicating their plans to strengthen tenant isolation in their cloud services without actually providing any specific details or actions to be taken by customers.

All told, 74 CVEs were fixed this month, the vast majority of which affect functionality within the Windows operating system. Other notable vulnerabilities include CVE-2022-21972 and CVE-2022-23270, critical RCEs in the Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol. Exploitation requires attackers to win a race condition, which increases the complexity, but if you have any RAS servers in your environment, patch sooner rather than later.

CVE-2022-26937 carries a CVSSv3 score of 9.8 and affects services using the Windows Network File System (NFS). This can be mitigated by disabling NFSV2 and NFSV3 on the server; however, this may cause compatibility issues, and upgrading is highly recommended.

CVE-2022-22017 is yet another client-side Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) vulnerability. While not as worrisome as when an RCE affects RDP servers, if a user can be enticed to connect to a malicious RDP server via social engineering tactics, an attacker will gain RCE on their system.

Sharepoint Server administrators should be aware of CVE-2022-29108, a post-authentication RCE fixed today. Exchange admins have CVE-2022-21978 to worry about, which could allow an attacker with elevated privileges on an Exchange server to gain the rights of a Domain Administrator.

A host of Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) vulnerabilities were also addressed this month, including CVE-2022-22012 and CVE-2022-29130 – both RCEs that, thankfully, are only exploitable if the MaxReceiveBuffer LDAP policy is set to a value higher than the default value.

Although there are no browser vulnerabilities this month, two RCEs affecting Excel (CVE-2022-29109 and CVE-2022-29110) and one Security Feature Bypass affecting Office (CVE-2022-29107) mean there is still some endpoint application patching to do.

Summary charts

Patch Tuesday - May 2022
Patch Tuesday - May 2022
Patch Tuesday - May 2022
Patch Tuesday - May 2022

Summary tables

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29972 Insight Software: CVE-2022-29972 Magnitude Simba Amazon Redshift ODBC Driver No Yes N/A Yes

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29148 Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30129 Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-23267 .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-29117 .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-29145 .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-30130 .NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 3.3 No

ESU Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-26935 Windows WLAN AutoConfig Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29121 Windows WLAN AutoConfig Service Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26936 Windows Server Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22015 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29103 Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-29132 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26937 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26925 Windows LSA Spoofing Vulnerability Yes Yes 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22012 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29130 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22013 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 No
CVE-2022-22014 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 No
CVE-2022-29128 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29129 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29137 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 No
CVE-2022-29139 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29141 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 No
CVE-2022-26931 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26934 Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29112 Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22011 Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29115 Windows Fax Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26926 Windows Address Book Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22019 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-21972 Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-23270 Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-29105 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-29127 BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.2 Yes

Exchange Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-21978 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.2 Yes

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29108 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29107 Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29109 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29110 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-26930 Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29125 Windows Push Notifications Apps Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29114 Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29140 Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29104 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-22016 Windows PlayToManager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26933 Windows NTFS Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29131 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29116 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes
CVE-2022-29133 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29142 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29106 Windows Hyper-V Shared Virtual Disk Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-24466 Windows Hyper-V Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22713 Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability No Yes 5.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26927 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29102 Windows Failover Cluster Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29113 Windows Digital Media Receiver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29134 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29120 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29122 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29123 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29138 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29135 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29150 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29151 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26913 Windows Authentication Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.4 Yes
CVE-2022-23279 Windows ALPC Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29126 Tablet Windows User Interface Application Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26932 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26938 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26939 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26940 Remote Desktop Protocol Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22017 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26923 Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

How to Strategically Scale Vendor Management and Supply Chain Security

Post Syndicated from AJ Debole original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/04/26/how-to-strategically-scale-vendor-management-and-supply-chain-security/

How to Strategically Scale Vendor Management and Supply Chain Security

This post is co-authored by Collin Huber

Recent security events — particularly the threat actor activity from the Lapsu$ group, Spring4Shell, and various new supply-chain attacks — have the security community on high alert. Security professionals and network defenders around the world are wondering what we can do to make the organizations we serve less likely to be featured in an article as the most recently compromised company.

In this post, we’ll articulate some simple changes we can all make in the near future to provide more impactful security guidance and controls to decrease risk in our environments.

Maintain good cyber hygiene

Here are some basic steps that organizations can take to ensure their security posture is in good health and risks are at a manageable level.

1.  Review privileged user activity for anomalies

Take this opportunity to review logs of privileged user activity. Additionally, review instances of changed passwords, as well as any other unexpected activity. Interview the end user to help determine the authenticity of the change. Take into consideration the types of endpoints used across your network, as well as expected actions or any changes to privileges (e.g. privilege escalation).

2. Enforce use of multifactor authentication

Has multifactor authentication (MFA) deployment stalled at your firm? This is an excellent opportunity to revisit deployment of these initiatives. Use of MFA reduces the potential for compromise in a significant number of instances. There are several options for deployment of MFA. Hardware-based MFA methods, such as FIDO tokens, are typically the strongest, and numerous options offer user-friendly ways to use MFA — for example, from a smartphone. Ensure that employees and third parties are trained not to accept unexpected prompts to approve a connection.

3. Understand vendor risks

Does your acquisition process consider the security posture of the vendor in question? Based on the use case for the vendor and the business need, consider the security controls you require to maintain the integrity of your environment. Additionally, review available security reports to identify security controls to investigate further. If a security incident has occurred, consider the mitigating controls that were missing for that vendor. Depending on the response of that vendor and their ability to implement those security controls, determine if this should influence purchase decisions or contract renewal.      

4. Review monitoring and alerts

Review system logs for other critical systems, including those with high volumes of data. Consider reviewing systems that may not store, process, or transmit sensitive data but could have considerable vulnerabilities. Depending on the characteristics of these systems and their mitigating controls, it may be appropriate to prioritize patching, implement additional mitigating controls, and even consider additional alerting.

Always make sure to act as soon as you can. It’s better to enact incident response (IR) plans and de-escalate than not to.

Build a more secure supply chain

Risks are inherent in the software supply chain, but there are some strategies that can help you ensure your vendors are as secure as possible. Here are three key concepts to consider implementing.

1. Enumerate edge connection points between internal and vendor environments

Every organization has ingress and egress points with various external applications and service providers. When new services or vendors are procured, access control lists (ACLs) are updated to accommodate the new data streams — which presents an opportunity to record simple commands for shutting those streams down in the event of a vendor compromise.

Early stages of an incident are often daunting, frustrating, and confusing for all parties involved. Empowering information security (IS) and information technology (IT) teams to have these commands ahead of time decreases the guesswork that needs to be done to create them when an event occurs. This frees up resources to perform other critical elements of your IR plan as appropriate.

One of the most critical elements of incident response is containment. Many vendors will immediately disable external connections when an attack is discovered, but relying on an external party to act in the best interest of your organization is a challenging position for any security professional. If your organization has a list of external connections open to the impacted vendor, creating templates or files to easily cut and paste commands to cut off the connection is an easy step in the planning phase of incident response. These commands can be approved for dispatch by senior leadership and immediately put in place to ensure whatever nefarious behavior occurring on the vendor’s network cannot pass into your environment.

An additional benefit of enumerating and memorializing these commands enables teams to practice them or review them during annual updates of the IRP or tabletop exercises. If your organization does not have this information prepared right now, you have a great opportunity to collaborate with your IS and IT teams to improve your preparedness for a vendor compromise.

Vendor compromises can result in service outages which may have an operational impact on your organization. When your organization is considering ways to mitigate potential risks associated with outages and other supply chain issues, review your business continuity plan to ensure it has the appropriate coverage and provides right-sized guidance for resiliency. It may not make business sense to have alternatives for every system or process, so memorialize accepted risks in a Plan of Action and Milestones (POAM) and/or your Risk Register to record your rationale and demonstrate due diligence.

2. Maintain a vendor inventory with key POCs and SLAs

Having a centralized repository of vendors with key points of contact (POCs) for the account and service-level agreements (SLAs) relevant to the business relationship is an invaluable asset in the event of a breach or attack. The repository enables rapid communication with the appropriate parties at the vendor to open and maintain a clear line of communication, so you can share updates and get critical questions answered in a timely fashion. Having SLAs related to system downtime and system support is also instrumental to ensure the vendor is furnishing the agreed-upon services as promised.

3. Prepare templates to communicate to customers and other appropriate parties

Finally, set up templates for communications about what your team is doing to protect the environment and answer any high-level questions in the event of a security incident. For these documents, it is best to work with legal departments and senior leadership to ensure the amount of information provided and the manner in which it is disclosed is appropriate.

  • Internal communication: Have a formatted memo to easily address some key elements of what is occurring to keep staff apprised of the situation. You may want to include remarks indicating an investigation is underway, your internal environment is being monitored, relevant impacts staff may see, who to contact if external parties have questions, and reiterate how to report unusual device behavior to your HelpDesk or security team.
  • External communication: Communication for the press regarding the investigation or severity of the breach as appropriate.
  • Regulatory notices: Work with legal teams to templatize regulatory notifications to ensure the right data is easily provided by technical teams to be shared in an easy-to-update format.

Complex software supply chains introduce a wide range of vulnerabilities into our environments – but with these strategic steps in place, you can limit the impacts of security incidents and keep risk to a minimum in your third-party vendor relationships.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

What’s New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2022 in Review

Post Syndicated from Roshnee Mistry Shah original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/04/19/whats-new-in-insightvm-and-nexpose-q1-2022-in-review/

What's New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2022 in Review

The world of cybersecurity never has a dull moment. While we are still recovering from the aftermath of Log4Shell, the recent ContiLeaks exposed multiple vulnerabilities that have been exploited by the Conti ransomware group. It’s critical for your team to identify the risk posed by such vulnerabilities and implement necessary remediation measures. As you will see, the product updates our vulnerability management (VM) team has made to InsightVM and Nexpose in the last quarter will empower you to stay in charge — not the vulnerabilities.

But that’s not all we’ve improved on. We’ve increased the scope of vulnerabilities tracked by incorporating CISA’s known exploited vulnerabilities (KEV) in the Threat Feed, usability enhancements, targeted reporting and scanning, and Log4Shell mitigation checks. And we’ve released our annual Vulnerability Intelligence Report to help you make sense of the vulns that impacted us last year and understand the trends that we will all be facing this year. Our team also offers practical guidance to help the security teams better protect themselves.

Let’s dive into the key feature releases and updates on the vulnerability management front for Q1 2022.

CISA’s KEV list: Detect, prioritize, and meet regulatory compliance

[InsightVM] ContiLeaks Helpful Query to easily detect ContiLeaks vulns and ensure compliance

CISA’s KEV catalog is part of the agency’s binding operative directive that has reporting requirements for federal agencies and civilian contractors. The recent ContiLeaks revealed over 30 vulns that are now a part of CISA’s KEV. While users could always build a query in IVM to identify these vulns, doing so is time-consuming and can be prone to error. The ContiLeaks Helpful Query takes out the manual effort  and lets customers easily locate 30+ ContiLeaks vulnerabilities in their environments. When the query is loaded into our Specific Vulnerability Dashboard template, it can give an at-a-glance view of the company’s risk posture as it relates to the Conti threat. In addition to helping customers identify the exploited vulnerabilities in their environment, the update will also help them stay within the bounds of CISA’s operative directive.

What's New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2022 in Review

What's New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2022 in Review

[InsightVM] Threat feed dashboard now includes CISA’s KEV catalog

While we are on the topic of CISA, you will be excited to learn that we have expanded the scope of vulnerabilities tracked to incorporate CISA’s KEV catalog in the InsightVM Threat Feed Dashboard, including the Assets With Actively Targeted Vulnerabilities card and the Most Common Actively Targeted Vulnerabilities card. The CISA inclusion makes it easy to see how exposed your organization is to active threats and inform prioritization decisions around remediation efforts.

We have also added a new “CISA KEV (known exploited vulnerability)” vulnerability category to allow for more targeted scanning (i.e. scanning the environment for CISA KEV entries only). You can also use the CISA KEV category to filter scan reports.

What's New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2022 in Review

Improvements to credentials

[Insight VM and Nexpose] A new credential type to support scanning Oracle Databases by Service Name

InsightVM and Nexpose customers have always been able to scan Oracle databases using SIDs (system identifiers) but were previously unable to provide a Service Name in the credential. This meant a gap in visibility for Oracle databases that could only be accessed via their Service Name. We were not happy with this limitation. Now, you now configure Oracle Database scans to specify a Service Name instead of an SID (you can still use the SID, if you want!) when authenticating. You now have the visibility into a wider range of deployment configurations of Oracle Database and the ability to configure scan using Service Name or SID.

What's New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2022 in Review

[Insight VM and Nexpose] Automatic Scan Assistant credentials generation

Last year, we introduced Scan Assistant, which alleviates the credential management (for Scan Engine) burden on vulnerability management teams. For the Scan Assistant to communicate with the Scan Engine, it requires digital certificates to be manually created and deployed on both the target assets and the Nexpose / IVM Security Console. Manually creating the public / private key pair is a complex and error-prone process.

With this update, we are taking some more burden off the vulnerability management teams. You can now use the Shared Credentials management UI to automatically generate Scan Assistant credentials. This not only reduces the technical expertise and time required to manage Scan Assistant credentials but also makes for a user-friendly experience for you.

Learn more in our recent blog post on passwordless scanning.

What's New in InsightVM and Nexpose: Q1 2022 in Review

[Insight VM and Nexpose] Log4Shell mitigation checks

The product improvements list would be incomplete without an update on Log4Shell.

If you are vulnerable to Log4Shell, you can edit the JAR files on a system to take out the vulnerable code and thus not get exploited. However, it is difficult to keep a check on this manually. This update adds that extra capability to not only look at the version of Log4j that was present in your environment but also check if it has been mitigated — i.e., if the vulnerable code is removed.

Authenticated scans and Agent-based assessments can now determine whether the JNDILookup class removal mitigation for Log4Shell has been applied to Log4j JAR files on Windows systems. This will reduce the number of reports of the vulnerability on systems that are not exploitable. We also added an Obsolete Software vulnerability check for Log4j 1.x, which will let you find obsolete versions of Log4j in your environment.

Stay in charge

As always, we hope these updates will make it easier for you to stay ahead of vulnerabilities.

It almost felt like the quarter might end on a calm note, but then the world of cybersecurity never has a dull moment. The end of the quarter saw Spring4Shell, another zero-day vulnerability in the Spring Core module of Spring Framework. Learn more about Rapid7 response to this vulnerability and how we are working around the clock to help our customers protect their own environments from Spring4Shell.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Patch Tuesday – April 2022

Post Syndicated from Greg Wiseman original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/04/12/patch-tuesday-april-2022/

Patch Tuesday - April 2022

From Defender to Windows, Office to Azure, this month’s Patch Tuesday has a large swath of Microsoft’s portfolio getting vulnerabilities fixed. 119 CVEs were addressed today, not including the 26 Chromium vulnerabilities that were fixed in the Edge browser.

One of these has been observed being exploited in the wild: CVE-2022-24521, reported to Microsoft by the National Security Agency, affects the Common Log File System Driver in all supported versions of Windows and allows attackers to gain additional privileges on a system they already have local access to. Another local privilege escalation (LPE), CVE-2022-26904 affecting the Windows User Profile Service, had been publicly disclosed but not reported as already being exploited – it’s harder for attackers to leverage as it relies on winning a race condition, which can be tricky to reliably achieve.

LPEs don’t always get the same attention that remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities do, but they can be a great help to attackers after they gain an initial foothold. These two categories dominate this month’s vulnerabilities, with 55 LPEs and 47 RCEs getting patched. 10 of the RCEs are considered “Critical,” affecting Windows Hyper-V (CVE-2022-22008, CVE-2022-23257, CVE-2022-24537); Windows SMB Client (CVE-2022-24500, CVE-2022-24541); Windows Network File System (CVE-2022-24491 and CVE-2022-24497); LDAP (CVE-2022-26919); Microsoft Dynamics (CVE-2022-23259); and the Windows RPC Runtime (CVE-2022-26809).

On the Office side of the house, Skype for Business Server was patched for spoofing (CVE-2022-26910) and information disclosure (CVE-2022-26911) vulnerabilities. Two RCEs affecting Excel (CVE-2022-24473 and CVE-2022-26901) were fixed, as well as a spoofing vulnerability in SharePoint Server (CVE-2022-24472).

With so many vulnerabilities to manage, it can be difficult to prioritize. Thankfully, most of this month’s CVEs can be addressed by patching the core OS. Administrators should first focus on updating any public-facing servers before moving on to internal servers and then client systems. The SMB Client vulnerabilities can also be mitigated by blocking port 445/tcp at the network perimeter – victims need to be enticed to connect to a malicious SMB server, and this would help against Internet-based attackers. Of course, this won’t help much if the malicious system was set up within the perimeter.

For any readers who enjoy deeper dives into vulnerabilities and exploits, Rapid7’s Jake Baines has a technical writeup of CVE-2022-24527, an LPE he discovered in the Connected Cache component of Microsoft Endpoint Manager that got fixed today. Check it out!

Summary charts

Patch Tuesday - April 2022
Patch Tuesday - April 2022
Patch Tuesday - April 2022
Patch Tuesday - April 2022

Summary tables

Azure Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-26898 Azure Site Recovery Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26896 Azure Site Recovery Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-26897 Azure Site Recovery Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-26907 Azure SDK for .NET Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.3 Yes

Browser Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-24523 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability No No 4.3 Yes
CVE-2022-24475 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-26891 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-26894 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-26895 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-26900 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-26908 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-26909 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-26912 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-1232 Chromium: CVE-2022-1232 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1146 Chromium: CVE-2022-1146 Inappropriate implementation in Resource Timing No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1145 Chromium: CVE-2022-1145 Use after free in Extensions No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1143 Chromium: CVE-2022-1143 Heap buffer overflow in WebUI No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1139 Chromium: CVE-2022-1139 Inappropriate implementation in Background Fetch API No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1138 Chromium: CVE-2022-1138 Inappropriate implementation in Web Cursor No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1137 Chromium: CVE-2022-1137 Inappropriate implementation in Extensions No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1136 Chromium: CVE-2022-1136 Use after free in Tab Strip No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1135 Chromium: CVE-2022-1135 Use after free in Shopping Cart No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1134 Chromium: CVE-2022-1134 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1133 Chromium: CVE-2022-1133 Use after free in WebRTC No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1131 Chromium: CVE-2022-1131 Use after free in Cast UI No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1130 Chromium: CVE-2022-1130 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in WebOTP No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1129 Chromium: CVE-2022-1129 Inappropriate implementation in Full Screen Mode No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1128 Chromium: CVE-2022-1128 Inappropriate implementation in Web Share API No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1127 Chromium: CVE-2022-1127 Use after free in QR Code Generator No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-1125 Chromium: CVE-2022-1125 Use after free in Portals No No N/A Yes

Developer Tools Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-26924 YARP Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-24513 Visual Studio Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26921 Visual Studio Code Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.3 No
CVE-2022-24765 GitHub: Uncontrolled search for the Git directory in Git for Windows No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-24767 GitHub: Git for Windows’ uninstaller vulnerable to DLL hijacking when run under the SYSTEM user account No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-26832 .NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No

Microsoft Dynamics Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-23259 Microsoft Dynamics 365 (on-premises) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes

Microsoft Office Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-26910 Skype for Business and Lync Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.3 Yes
CVE-2022-26911 Skype for Business Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-24472 Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability No No 8 Yes
CVE-2022-24473 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26901 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

SQL Server Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-23292 Microsoft Power BI Spoofing Vulnerability No No 5.9 Yes

System Center Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-24548 Microsoft Defender Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes

Windows Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-24543 Windows Upgrade Assistant Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24550 Windows Telephony Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26786 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26789 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26791 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26793 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26795 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24491 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24497 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24487 Windows Local Security Authority (LSA) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24483 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-24545 Windows Kerberos Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-24486 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24490 Windows Hyper-V Shared Virtual Hard Disks Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-24539 Windows Hyper-V Shared Virtual Hard Disks Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-26783 Windows Hyper-V Shared Virtual Hard Disks Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26785 Windows Hyper-V Shared Virtual Hard Disks Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-23257 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22008 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24537 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22009 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-23268 Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26920 Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26808 Windows File Explorer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-24495 Windows Direct Show – Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-24547 Windows Digital Media Receiver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24488 Windows Desktop Bridge Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24546 Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26811 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26823 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26824 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26825 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26826 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26814 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26817 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26818 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26816 Windows DNS Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-24538 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5 No
CVE-2022-26784 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5 No
CVE-2022-24484 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 5.5 No
CVE-2022-26828 Windows Bluetooth Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-24549 Windows AppX Package Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24482 Windows ALPC Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26914 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26788 PowerShell Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24496 Local Security Authority (LSA) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24532 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26830 DiskUsage.exe Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-24479 Connected User Experiences and Telemetry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24489 Cluster Client Failover (CCF) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No

Windows ESU Vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-24498 Windows iSCSI Target Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26807 Windows Work Folder Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-24474 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24542 Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26904 Windows User Profile Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No Yes 7 Yes
CVE-2022-24541 Windows Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26915 Windows Secure Channel Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-24500 Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26787 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26790 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26792 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26794 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26796 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26797 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26798 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26801 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26802 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26803 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26919 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-26831 Windows LDAP Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-24544 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24530 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24499 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26903 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26810 Windows File Server Resource Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26827 Windows File Server Resource Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26916 Windows Fax Compose Form Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26917 Windows Fax Compose Form Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26918 Windows Fax Compose Form Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24527 Windows Endpoint Configuration Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26812 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26813 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-24536 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26815 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26819 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26820 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26821 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26822 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26829 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-24521 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Yes No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24481 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24494 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-24540 Windows ALPC Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-21983 Win32 Stream Enumeration Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-24534 Win32 Stream Enumeration Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-24485 Win32 File Enumeration Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26809 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24528 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24492 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-24533 Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8 Yes
CVE-2022-24493 Microsoft Local Security Authority (LSA) Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

4 Fallacies That Keep SMBs Vulnerable to Ransomware, Pt. 2

Post Syndicated from Ryan Weeks original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/03/31/4-fallacies-that-keep-smbs-vulnerable-to-ransomware-pt-2/

4 Fallacies That Keep SMBs Vulnerable to Ransomware, Pt. 2

This post is co-authored by Chris Henderson, Senior Director of Information Security at Datto, Inc.

Welcome back for the second and final of our blogs on the fallacies and biases that perpetuate ransomware risk for SMBs. In part one, we examined how flawed thinking and a sense of helplessness are obstacles to taking action against ransomware. In this final part, we will examine fallacies number 3 and 4: the ways SMBs often fail to “trust but verify” the security safety of their critical business partners, and how prior investments affect their forward-looking mitigation decisions.

3. Failing to trust but verify

“You seem like someone I can trust to help support and grow my business.”

Stranger danger

When SMBs create business partnerships, we do so with a reasonable expectation that others will do the right things to keep both them and us safe. SMBs are effectively placing trust in strangers. As humans, we (often unconsciously) decide who to trust due to how they make us feel or whether they remind us of a past positive experience. Rarely have SMBs done a deep enough examination to determine if that level of trust is truly warranted, especially when it comes to protecting against ransomware.

We reasonably — but perhaps incorrectly — expect a few key things from these business partners, namely that they will:

  • Be rational actors that can be relied on to make informed decisions that maximize benefits for us
  • Exercise rational choice in our best interests
  • Operate with the same level of due care that a reasonable, prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances, in decisions that affect our business – akin to a fiduciary

Rational actor model

According to an economic theory, a rational actor maximizes benefits for themselves first and will exercise rational choice that determines whether an option is right for themselves. That begs the question: To what extent do SMBs understand if business objectives are aligned such that what is right for their business partners’ cyber protection is also right for them? In the SMB space, too often the answer is based on trust alone and not on any sort of verification, or what mature security programs call third-party due diligence.

If I harm you, I harm myself

Increasingly, ransomware attacks are relying on our business relationships (a.k.a. supply chains) to facilitate attacks on targets. End targets may be meticulously selected, but they could instead be targets of opportunity, and sometimes they are even impacted as collateral damage. In any case, in this ransomware environment, it is critical for SMBs to reassess the level of trust they place in their business partners, as their cyber posture is now part of yours. You share the risk.

Trust is a critical component of business relationships, but trust in a business partner’s security must be verified upon establishment of the relationship and reaffirmed periodically thereafter. It is a reasonable expectation that, given this ransomware environment, your business partners will be able to prove that they take both their and your protection as being in your mutual best interests. They must be able to speak to and demonstrate how they work toward that objective.

Acknowledge and act

Trust is no longer enough — SMBs have to verify. Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all process for diligence, but a good place to start is with a serious conversation about your business partners’ attitudes, beliefs, current readiness, and their investments in cyber resilience, ransomware prevention, and recovery. During that conversation, ask a few key questions:

  1. Do you have cyber insurance coverage for a ransomware incident that affects both you and your customers? Tip: Ask them to provide you proof of coverage.
  2. What cybersecurity program framework do you follow, and to what extent have you accomplished operating effectiveness against that framework? Tip: Ask to see materials from audits or assessments as evidence.
  3. Has your security posture been validated by an independent third party? Tip: Ask to see materials from audits or assessments as evidence.
  4. When was the last time you, or a customer of yours, suffered a cybersecurity incident, and how did you respond? Tip: Ask for a reference from a customer they’ve helped recover from a ransomware incident.

4. “We can’t turn back now; we’ve come too far”

“We have already spent so much time and made significant investments in IT solutions to achieve our business objectives. It wouldn’t make sense at this point to abandon our solutions, given what we’ve already invested.”

Sunk cost

Ransomware threat actors seek businesses whose IT solutions — when improperly developed, deployed, configured, or maintained — make compromise and infection easy. Such solutions are currently a primary access vector for ransomware, as they can be difficult to retrofit security into. When that happens, we are faced with a decision to migrate platforms, which can be costly and disruptive.

This decision point is one of the most difficult for SMBs, as it’s very easy to fall into a sunk cost fallacy — the tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we’ve already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

It’s easy to look backward at all the work done to get an IT solution to this point and exceedingly difficult to accept a large part of that investment as a sunk cost. The reality is that it doesn’t matter how much time has been invested in IT solutions. If security is not a core feature of the solution, then the long-term risk to an SMB’s business is greater than any sunk cost.

Acknowledge and act

Sunk costs burn because they feel like a failure — knowing what we know now, we should have made a different decision. New information is always presenting itself, and the security landscape is changing constantly around us. It’s impossible to foresee every shift, so our best defense is to remain agile and pivot when and as necessary. Acknowledge that there will be sunk costs on this journey, and allowing those to stand in the way of reasonable action is the real failure.

Moving forward

“There’s a brighter tomorrow that’s just down the road. Do not look back; you are not going that way” – Mary Engelbreit

Realizing your SMB has real cyber risk exposure to ransomware requires overcoming a series of logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Once you understand and accept that reality, it’s imperative not to buy into learned helplessness, because you need not be a victim. An SMB’s size and agility can be an advantage.

From here, re-evaluate your business partnerships and level of trust when it comes to cybersecurity. Be willing to make decisions that accept prior investments may just be sunk cost, but that the benefits of change to become more cyber resilient outweigh the risks of not changing in the long run.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

Analyzing the Attack Landscape: Rapid7’s 2021 Vulnerability Intelligence Report

Post Syndicated from Caitlin Condon original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/03/28/analyzing-the-attack-landscape-rapid7s-annual-vulnerability-intelligence-report/

Analyzing the Attack Landscape: Rapid7’s 2021 Vulnerability Intelligence Report

Every year, our research team at Rapid7 analyzes thousands of vulnerabilities to understand root causes, dispel misconceptions, and explain why some flaws are more likely to be exploited than others. By continuously reviewing the vulnerability landscape and sharing our research team’s insights, we hope to help organizations around the world better secure their environments and shore up vulnerabilities to keep bad actors at bay.

Today, we are proud to share Rapid7’s 2021 Vulnerability Intelligence Report, which provides a landscape view of critical vulnerabilities and threats and offers expert analysis of attack vectors and exploitation trends from a truly harrowing year for risk management teams. The report details 50 notable vulnerabilities from 2021, 43 of which were exploited in the wild. We also highlight a number of non-CVE-based attacks, including several significant supply chain security incidents.

In this post, we’ll take a big-picture look at the threat landscape in 2021 and reinforce key ways for organizations to protect themselves against high-priority vulnerabilities. For more insights and in-depth technical analysis, download the full report now.

As many security and IT teams experienced firsthand, 2021 saw notable increases in attack volume, urgency, and complexity. Many of 2021’s critical vulnerabilities were exploited quickly and at scale, dwarfing attacks from previous years and giving businesses little time to shore up defenses in the face of rapidly rising risk. Key findings across the 50 vulnerabilities in this year’s report include:

  • A 136% increase in widespread threats over 2020, due in part to attacker economies of scale, like ransomware and coin mining campaigns
  • A significant rise in zero-day attacks
  • Lower time to known exploitation (TTKE) — a decrease of 71% year over year

When a vulnerability is exploited by many attackers across many different organizations and industries, Rapid7 researchers classify that vulnerability as a widespread threat. In one of the year’s more jarring trends, 52% of 2021’s widespread threats began with a zero-day exploit. These vulnerabilities were discovered and weaponized by adversaries before vendors were able to patch them. A much higher proportion of zero-day attacks are now threatening many organizations from the outset, instead of being used in more targeted operations. 85% of the zero-day exploits in our 2021 data set, like the Microsoft Exchange ProxyLogon vulnerabilities and Log4Shell CVE-2021-44228, were widespread threats from the start.

Additional themes from 2021 included an increase in driver-based attacks and injection exploits, as well as ongoing threats to software supply chain integrity. In the full report, our team also enumerates high-level vulnerability root causes and attacker utilities to help readers understand which vulnerabilities may offer easy exploitability or deep access for attackers.

Examining today’s threat landscape

In summary, the threat landscape in 2021 was frenetic for many businesses. Not only was the world still grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, which continued to put pressure on staffing and budgets, but security teams faced a rise in attack complexity and severity. Widespread attacks leveraging vulnerabilities in commonly deployed software were endemic, ransomware prevalence increased sharply, and zero-day exploitation reached an all-time high.

While this may sound grim, there is some good news. For one thing, the security industry is better able to detect and analyze zero-day attacks. This, in turn, has helped improve commercial security solutions and open-source rule sets. And while we would never call the rise of ransomware a positive thing for the world, the universality of the threat has spurred more public-private cooperation and driven new recommendations for preventing and recovering from ransomware attacks.

These are just a few examples of how the threat landscape has evolved — and how the challenges vulnerability risk management teams face are evolving along with it. We recommend prioritizing remediation for the CVEs in this year’s data set.

How to manage risk from critical vulnerabilities

At Rapid7, we believe that research-driven context on vulnerabilities and emergent threats is critical to building forward-looking security programs. In line with that, organizations of all sizes can implement the following battle-tested tactics to minimize easy opportunities for attackers.

  • Asset inventory is the foundation of any security program. Responding quickly and decisively to high-urgency threats requires knowing which technologies you use across your stack, how they are configured, and who has access to them.
  • Limit and monitor your internet-facing attack surface area. Pay particular attention to security gateway products, such as VPNs and firewalls.
  • Establish emergency zero-day patching procedures and incident response playbooks that go hand-in-hand with regular patching cycles.
  • Conduct incident response investigations that look for indicators of compromise (IOCs) and post-exploitation activity during widespread threat events in addition to activating emergency patching protocols.
  • Employ in-depth security measures to protect your development pipelines from supply chain attacks. These pipelines are often targets — as are developers.

These are only some of the fundamental ways you can layer security to better protect your organization in the face of widespread and emergent threats. Many of the CVEs in our report can be used in concert with other vulnerabilities to achieve greater impact, so make sure to prioritize remediation of the vulnerabilities we’ve identified and implement control and detection mechanisms across the whole of your environment. We strongly recommend prioritizing remediation for the CVEs in this year’s data set.

Read the 2021 Vulnerability Intelligence Report to see our full list of high-priority CVEs and learn more about attack trends from 2021.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

4 Fallacies That Keep SMBs Vulnerable to Ransomware, Pt. 1

Post Syndicated from Ryan Weeks original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/03/24/four-fallacies-that-keep-smbs-vulnerable-to-ransomware-pt-1/

4 Fallacies That Keep SMBs Vulnerable to Ransomware, Pt. 1

Ransomware has focused on big-game hunting of large enterprises in the past years, and those events often make the headlines. The risk can be even more serious for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), who struggle to both understand the changing nature of the threats and lack the resources to become cyber resilient. Ransomware poses a greater threat to SMBs’ core ability to continue to operate, as recovery can be impossible or expensive beyond their means.

SMBs commonly seek assistance from managed services providers (MSPs) for their foundational IT needs to run their business — MSPs have been the virtual CIOs for SMBs for years. Increasingly, SMBs are also turning to their MSP partners to help them fight the threat of ransomware, implicitly asking them to also take on the role of a virtual CISO, too. These MSPs have working knowledge of ransomware and are uniquely situated to assist SMBs that are ready to go on a cyber resilience journey.

With this expert assistance available, one would think that we would be making more progress on ransomware. However, MSPs are still meeting resistance when working to implement a cyber resilience plan for many SMBs.

In our experience working with MSPs and hearing the challenges they face with SMBs, we have come to the conclusion that much of this resistance they meet is based on under-awareness, biases, or fallacies.

In this two-part blog series, we will present four common mistakes SMBs make when thinking about ransomware risk, allowing you to examine your own beliefs and draw new conclusions. We contend that until SMBs resistance to resilience improvement do the work to unwind critical flaws in thinking, ransomware will continue to be a growing and existential problem they face.

1. Relying on flawed thinking

I’m concerned about the potential impacts of ransomware, but I do not have anything valuable that an attacker would want, so ransomware is not likely to happen to me.

Formal fallacies

These arguments are the most common form of resistance toward implementing adequate cyber resilience for SMBs, and they create a rationalization for inaction as well as a false sense of safety. However, they are formal fallacies, relying on common beliefs that are partially informed by cognitive biases.

Formal fallacies can best be classified simply as deductively invalid arguments that typically commit an easily recognizable logical error when properly examined. Either the premises are untrue, or the argument is invalid due to a logical flaw.

Looking at this argument, the conclusion “ransomware will not happen to me” is the logical conclusion of the prior statement, “I have nothing of value to an attacker.” The flaw in this argument is that the attacker does not need the data they steal or hold ransom to be intrinsically valuable to them — they only need it to be valuable to the attack target.

Data that is intrinsically valuable is nice to have for an attacker, as they can monetize it outside of the attack by exfiltrating it and selling it (potentially multiple times), but the primary objective is to hold it ransom, because you need it to run your business. Facing this fact, we can see that the conclusion “ransomware will not happen to me” is logically invalid based on the premise “I have nothing of value to an attacker.”

Confirmation bias

The belief “ransomware will not happen to me” can also be a standalone argument. The challenge here is that the premise of the argument is unknown. This means we need data to support probability. With insufficient reporting data to capture accurate rates of ransomware on SMBs, this is problematic and can lead to confirmation bias. If I can’t find data on others like me as an SMB, then I may conclude that this confirms I’m not at risk.

Anchoring bias

I may be able to find data in aggregate that states that my SMB’s industries are not as commonly targeted. This piece of data can lead to an anchoring bias, which is the tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information we are given. While ransomware might not be as common in your industry, that does not mean it does not exist. We need to research further rather than latching onto this data to anchor our belief.

Acknowledge and act

The best way to combat these formal fallacies and biases is for the SMB and their MSP to acknowledge these beliefs and act to challenge them through proper education. Below are some of the most effective exercises we have seen SMBs and MSPs use to better educate themselves on real versus perceived ransomware risk likelihood:

  1. Threat profiling is an exercise that collects information, from vendor partners and open-source intelligence sources, to inform which threat actors are likely to target the business, using which tactics.
  2. Data flow diagrams can help you to map out your unique operating environment and see how all your systems connect together to better inform how data moves and resides within your IT environment.
  3. A risk assessment uses the threat profile information and overlays on the data flow diagram to determine where the business is most susceptible to attacker tactics.
  4. Corrective action planning is the last exercise, where you prioritize the largest gaps in protection using a threat- and risk-informed approach.

2. Being resigned to victimhood

“Large companies and enterprises get hit with ransomware all the time. As an SMB, I don’t stand a chance. I don’t have the resources they do. This is hopeless; there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Victim mentality

This past year has seen a number of companies that were supposedly “too large and well-funded to be hacked” reporting ransomware breaches. It feels like there is a constant stream of information re-enforcing the mentality that, even with a multi-million dollar security program, an SMB will not be able to effectively defend against the adverse outcomes from ransomware. This barrage of information can make them feel a loss of control and that the world is against them.

Learned helplessness

These frequent negative outcomes for “prepared” organizations are building a sense of learned helplessness, or powerlessness, within the SMB space. If a well-funded and organized company can’t stop ransomware, why should we even try?

This mentality takes a binary view on a ransomware attack, viewing it as an all-or-nothing event. In reality, there are degrees of success of a ransomware attack. The goal of becoming immune to ransomware can spark feelings of learned helplessness, but if you reframe it as minimizing the damage a successful attack will have, this allows you to regain a sense of control in what otherwise may feel like an impossible effort.

Pessimism bias

This echo chamber of successful attacks (and thus presumed unsuccessful mitigations) is driving a pessimism bias. As empathetic beings, we feel the pain of these attacked organizations as though it were our own. We then tie this negative emotion to our expectation of an event (i.e. a ransomware attack), creating the expectation of a negative outcome for our own organization.

Acknowledge and act

Biases and beliefs shape our reality. If an SMB believes they are going to fall victim to ransomware and fails to protect against it, they actually make that exact adverse outcome more likely.

Despite the fear and uncertainty, the most important variable missing from this mental math is environment complexity. The more complex the environment, the more difficult it is to protect. SMBs have an advantage over their large-business counterparts, as the SMB IT environment is usually easier to control with the right in-house tech staff and/or MSP partners. That means SMBs are better situated than large companies to deter and recover from attacks — with the right strategic investments.

Check back with us next week, when we’ll tackle the third and fourth major fallacies that hold SMBs back from securing themselves against ransomware.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

The VM Lifecycle: How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going

Post Syndicated from Devin Krugly original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/03/16/the-vm-lifecycle-how-we-got-here-and-where-were-going/

The VM Lifecycle: How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going

Written in collaboration with Joel Ashman

The immutable truth that vulnerability management (VM) programs have long adhered to is that successful programs should follow a consistent lifecycle. This concept is simply a series of phases or steps that have a logical sequence and are repeated according to an organization’s VM program cadence.

A lifecycle gives a VM program a central illustrative model, defining the high-level series of activities that must be performed to reduce attack surface risk — the ultimate goal of any VM program. This type of model provides a uniform set of expectations for all stakeholders, who are often cross-functional and geographically dispersed. It can also be used as a diagnostic tool to identify bottlenecks, inefficiencies, or gaps (more on that later).

There are many lifecycle model prototypes in circulation, and they are generally comparable and iterative in nature. They break large-bucket activities into four, five, or six phases of work which describe the effort needed to prepare and scan for vulnerabilities or configuration weaknesses, assess or analyze, distribute, and ultimately address those findings through remediation or another risk treatment plan (i.e. exceptions, retire a server, etc).

While any one specific lifecycle will (and should) vary by organization and the specific tools in use, there are some fundamental steps or phases that remain consistent. This educational series will focus on introducing those fundamental building blocks, followed by practical demonstrations on how best to leverage Rapid7 solutions and services to accelerate your program.

In this first installment of a multipart blog and webinar series, we will explore the concept of a VM program lifecycle and provide practical guidance and definition for what many consider the first of the iterative VM lifecycle phases – often referred to as “discover”, “understand,” or even “planning.”

A (very) brief history of the VM lifecycle

But let’s return to the lifecycle concept for just a moment.

Having just a couple of small variables in my life flip the other way, I could have ended up a forensic historian or anthropologist. Those interests have paid dividends time and time again: to understand where you want to go, you have to understand how you got here.

The need for vulnerability management has existed since long before it had a title. It falls under what could be argued is the most important cybersecurity discipline: security hygiene. If you want nice teeth, you have to have good dental hygiene (identify cavities and perform regular maintenance). Similarly, organizations that require secure digital infrastructure must regularly assess and identify weaknesses (vulnerabilities, defects, improper configs) and then address those weaknesses through updates or other mitigation.

Two key points about how we got here:

  1. We all know the evolution of a few worms and viruses in ARPANET in the 1970s, to the much more intentionally crafted viruses targeting operating systems of the 1980s, to today’s this-ware or that-ware that have malintent baked right into the very fibers of their assembly language. In computing, the potential for misuse in the form of vulnerabilities has been with us from the start.
  2. A subtle but countervailing force has slowly but surely crept forward to stem, reflect, contain, and now often eradicate the intentions of bad actors. We the Defenders, the Protectors, the Stewards of Vulnerability Management will not be dissuaded from our obligation to manage cyber risk: to safeguard secrets, to shield corporate data, and to protect the networks that allow us to share pictures of the animals living in our homes and purchase large quantities of toilet paper online. Let’s not forget the prevention of abuse of individual identity — stopping those thieves from taking vacation savings, using those funds for their own vacation, and posting pictures on a Caribbean island from their Instagram account (true story).

We are keen to meet and overcome the challenges of modern attackers and modern infrastructure and applications (with all its containers and microservices), both now and into the bright and hopefully still shiny future.

We have met this call and at times faltered, but we have never been discouraged — and a key element that has supported us Protectors has been the lifecycle artifact. A conceptual model that conveys the continuous nature of the management of vulnerability risk and provides steadfast guidance for all stakeholders.

The lifecycle holds true

Vulnerability risk management is a team sport. It is only through careful, judicious, and sometimes aggravatingly laborious detail that a full lifecycle successfully completes. This may entail the same conversation happening no less than 5 to 8 times with the same audience. Even if the last time you said, “I didn’t ever want to have this conversation ever again.” Amidst all the chaos and confusion, the VM lifecycle is an immutable truth. Its methods may evolve and its technology take a dramatically different approach, but it will remain true.

The compendium to this blog is a webinar, which you can watch here. Both are the first in our series to freshen up perceptions and maybe introduce a few new concepts by exploring the various phases and activities that are fundamental pillars for a strong VM program and its execution. In addition, we have created a worksheet as a guide to facilitate efficient collection of information to build a VM stakeholder map. You can access the worksheet and download it here.

Join me for the next in the series to dive deeper into the initial stages or phases, or whatever preferred term you use, of the VM lifecycle.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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

InsightVM Scanning: Demystifying SSH Credential Elevation

Post Syndicated from Emmett Kelly original https://blog.rapid7.com/2022/03/15/insightvm-scanning-demystifying-ssh-credential-elevation/

InsightVM Scanning: Demystifying SSH Credential Elevation

Written in collaboration with Jimmy Cancilla

The credentials to log into the assets on the network are one of the most critical inputs that can be provided to a vulnerability assessment. In order to capture and report on the full risk of an asset, the scan engine must be able to access the asset so that it can collect vital pieces of information, such as what software is installed and how the system is configured. For UNIX and UNIX-like systems, access to a target is primarily achieved through the Secure Shell Protocol (SSH). Thus, scan engines accessing these systems should have access to the appropriate SSH credentials.

However, this raises the question: What are appropriate SSH credentials? In order for a vulnerability or policy assessment to provide accurate and comprehensive results, the scan engine should ideally be able to gain root-level access to the systems being assessed. Understandably, many security teams are wary about providing the scan engine with root credentials to all of their systems. Instead, security teams prefer to provide a non-root set of credentials that are capable of elevating to become root. In this context, credential elevation means logging into a system with one set of credentials that has fewer privileges and then elevating that credential to gain root-level privileges. In this way, IT administrators can provide service users that can be monitored and easily disabled if necessary.

In the next section, we will look at the different ways that credentials can be elevated.

Elevation options

sudo

The sudo command enables users to run commands with the security privileges of another user, which by default happens to be the root user (superuser). The ability to use the sudo command to elevate to root is a privilege that is provided by the system administrator. The administrator explicitly grants users (or groups) permission to use the sudo command — this is typically done by modifying the /etc/sudoers file on Linux-based systems.

The benefit of having access to the sudo command means that a user does not need to know the root password in order to gain root-level privileges. However, the user attempting to elevate to root-level privileges via sudo may still need to authenticate themselves by providing their own password. This is different from the behaviour of the su command, which will be discussed later.

What this means in terms of configuring sudo elevation in the Security Console is that the Permission Elevation Password on the “Add Credentials” page must be set to the password of the user attempting to elevate to root.

InsightVM Scanning: Demystifying SSH Credential Elevation

su

Like the sudo command, the su command enables users to run commands with the security privileges of another user, the default being to run the commands as the root user (superuser). However, unlike the sudo command, the su command typically does not require a system administrator to provide explicit permission to use the command. Instead, users can use the su command to switch to any other user on the system but must provide the password of the target user. The implication of this is that in order to use the su command to elevate to root-level privileges, the user must authenticate by providing the root password.

What this means in terms of configuring su elevation in the Security Console, is that the Permission Elevation Password on the “Add Credentials” page must be set to the password of the root user.

InsightVM Scanning: Demystifying SSH Credential Elevation

sudo+su

If you have read the above sections on sudo and su, you may be asking yourself why you would need to combine the two commands. The answer comes down to a subtle but important difference between the two commands, namely the environmental context in which those commands are invoked. When using sudo to execute another command with root-level privileges, the command is run within the current user’s environment. This means that any environment-specific properties (for example, environment variables) are retained. When using su to execute another command with root-level privileges, su will invoke the default shell used by root and then run the command within that environment. This implies that any environment-specific properties loaded by default when logging into the root user will be set.

Given this explanation, combining the sudo and su commands provides a best of both worlds situation: It allows a user to elevate their privileges to root by providing their own user password, and it will execute the command within the context of the root environment (as opposed to the user’s environment). How does this work?

The first command executed is sudo, which will prompt the user to authenticate themselves by entering their own password. Then, the su command will be run. However, since it is running with root-level privileges, it won’t prompt for another password but instead will execute any commands within the context of the root environment. So to summarize, sudo+su allows for executing commands with root-level privileges within the context of root’s environment but without requiring knowledge of the root password.

What this means in terms of configuring sudo+su elevation in the Security Console, is that the Permission Elevation Password on the “Add Credentials” page must be set to the password of the user attempting to elevate to root.

InsightVM Scanning: Demystifying SSH Credential Elevation

Important note about sudo, su and sudo+su

The Permission Elevation User should be root. A common misconfiguration when configuring permission elevation is to set this value to the user’s username. This leads to the scan engine logging in as the initial user, then using permission elevation to attempt to elevate to the same user! The credential status will be reported as successful, but the scan results will not have the same accuracy of a correctly configured scan with root permissions.

pbrun

The pbrun command is a utility within the PowerBroker application provided by BeyondTrust. It works similarly to the sudo command in that it allows a user to elevate to root-level privileges without having to provide the root password.

Configuring privilege escalation with pbrun in the Security Console is fairly straightforward, as it does not require any additional passwords beyond the user’s password.

InsightVM Scanning: Demystifying SSH Credential Elevation

Cisco Enable / Privileged Exec

This option specifically allows a user to elevate to superuser-level privileges on certain Cisco devices using the enable command. Administrators of the Cisco devices will need to have configured an enable password to allow for privilege elevation.

What this means in terms of configuring Cisco Enable / Privileged Exec elevation in the Security Console, is that the Permission Elevation Password on the “Add Credentials” page must be set to the Cisco Enable password configured on the devices.

InsightVM Scanning: Demystifying SSH Credential Elevation

Perils of not elevating

Elevation is critical to accurately assess an asset for vulnerabilities and system configurations. There are several key pieces of information that can only be collected with root-level privileges. Improperly configuring credential elevation is one of the most common causes of inaccurate or incomplete assessment results. The following table outlines a few key operations and pieces of data that require root-level privileges. It is important to note that this is a non-exhaustive list operations and data requiring root-level privileges – an exhaustive list would quickly become outdated as new data collection techniques are constantly being added to the product.

InsightVM Scanning: Demystifying SSH Credential Elevation

Conclusion

When it comes to vulnerability management, retrieving accurate and comprehensive results is paramount to mitigating risks within your organization. The most accurate data is collected when the scan engine has root-level access to the systems it is scanning. However, not all organizations may be in a position to provide the root password to these systems.

In this case, a best practice is to provide the vulnerability management software with a service account that is capable of elevating its permissions to root. This allows system administrators to more easily manage who is capable of elevating to root and, if necessary, revoke access. However, there are several different ways that an account can elevate its permissions. Each method comes with subtle but important differences. Understanding those differences is critical to ensuring that elevation to the correct level of permissions occurs successfully.

Additional reading

NEVER MISS A BLOG

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