What's new arround internet
| Src | Date (GMT) | Titre | Description | Tags | Stories | Notes |
 |
2019-05-28 06:20:06 | Almost One Million Vulnerable to BlueKeep Vuln (CVE-2019-0708) (lien direct) | Microsoft announced a vulnerability in it's "Remote Desktop" product that can lead to robust, wormable exploits. I scanned the Internet to assess the danger. I find nearly 1-million devices on the public Internet that are vulnerable to the bug. That means when the worm hits, it'll likely compromise those million devices. This will likely lead to an event as damaging as WannaCry and notPetya from 2017 -- potentially worse, as hackers have since honed their skills exploiting these things for ransomware and other nastiness.To scan the Internet, I started with masscan, my Internet-scale port scanner, looking for port 3389, the one used by Remote Desktop. This takes a couple hours, and lists all the devices running Remote Desktop -- in theory.This returned 7,629,102 results (over 7-million). However, there is a lot of junk out there that'll respond on this port. Only about half are actually Remote Desktop.Masscan only finds the open ports, but is not complex enough to check for the vulnerability. Remote Desktop is a complicated protocol. A project was posted that could connect to an address and test it, to see if it was patched or vulnerable. I took that project and optimized it a bit, rdpscan, then used it to scan the results from masscan. It's a thousand times slower, but it's only scanning the results from masscan instead of the entire Internet.The table of results is as follows:1447579 UNKNOWN - receive timeout1414793 SAFE - Target appears patched1294719 UNKNOWN - connection reset by peer1235448 SAFE - CredSSP/NLA required 923671 VULNERABLE -- got appid 651545 UNKNOWN - FIN received 438480 UNKNOWN - connect timeout 105721 UNKNOWN - connect failed 9 82836 SAFE - not RDP but HTTP 24833 UNKNOWN - connection reset on connect 3098 UNKNOWN - network error 2576 UNKNOWN - connection terminatedThe various UNKNOWN things fail for various reasons. A lot of them are because the protocol isn't actually Remote Desktop and respond weirdly when we try to talk Remote Desktop. A lot of others are Windows machines, sometimes vulnerable and sometimes not, but for some reason return errors sometimes.The important results are those marked VULNERABLE. There are 923,671 vulnerable machines in this result. That means we've confirmed the vulnerability really does exist, though it's possible a small number of these are "honeypots" deliberately pretending to be vulnerable in order to monitor hacker activity on the Internet.The next result are those marked SAFE due to probably being "pached". Actually, it doesn't necessarily mean they are patched Windows boxes. They could instead be non-Windows systems that appear the same as patched Windows boxes. But either way, they are safe from this vulnerability. There are 1,414,793 of them.The next result to look at are those marked SAFE due to CredSSP/NLA failures, of which there are 1,235,448. This doesn't mean they are patched, but only that we can't exploit them. They require "network level authentication" first before we can talk Remote Desktop to them. That means we can't test whether they are patched or vulnerable -- but neither can the hackers. They may still be exploitable via an insider threat who knows a valid username/password, but they aren't exploitable by anonymous hackers or worms.The next category is marked as SAFE because they aren't Remote Desktop at all, but HTTP servers. In other words, in response to o | Ransomware Vulnerability Threat Patching Guideline | NotPetya Wannacry | |
|
2019-05-27 19:59:38 | A lesson in journalism vs. cybersecurity (lien direct) | A recent NYTimes article blaming the NSA for a ransomware attack on Baltimore is typical bad journalism. It's an op-ed masquerading as a news article. It cites many to support the conclusion the NSA is to be blamed, but only a single quote, from the NSA director, from the opposing side. Yet many experts oppose this conclusion, such as @dave_maynor, @beauwoods, @daveaitel, @riskybusiness, @shpantzer, @todb, @hrbrmst, ... It's not as if these people are hard to find, it's that the story's authors didn't look.The main reason experts disagree is that the NSA's Eternalblue isn't actually responsible for most ransomware infections. It's almost never used to start the initial infection -- that's almost always phishing or website vulns. Once inside, it's almost never used to spread laterally -- that's almost always done with windows networking and stolen credentials. Yes, ransomware increasingly includes Eternalblue as part of their arsenal of attacks, but this doesn't mean Eternalblue is responsible for ransomware.The NYTimes story takes extraordinary effort to jump around this fact, deliberately misleading the reader to conflate one with the other. A good example is this paragraph: That link is a warning from last July about the "Emotet" ransomware and makes no mention of EternalBlue. Instead, the story is citing anonymous researchers claiming that EthernalBlue has been added to Emotet since after that DHS warning.Who are these anonymous researchers? The NYTimes article doesn't say. This is bad journalism. The principles of journalism are that you are supposed to attribute where you got such information, so that the reader can verify for themselves whether the information is true or false, or at least, credible.And in this case, it's probably false. The likely source for that claim is this article from Malwarebytes about Emotet. They have since retracted this claim, as the latest version of their article points out. In any event, the NYTimes article claims that Emotet is now "relying" on the NSA's EternalBlue to spread. That's not the same thing as "using", not even close. Yes, lots of ransomware has been updated to also use Eternalblue to spread. However, what ransomware is relying upon is still the Wind |
Ransomware Malware Patching Guideline | NotPetya Wannacry | |
|
2018-10-14 04:57:46 | How to irregular cyber warfare (lien direct) | Somebody (@thegrugq) pointed me to this article on "Lessons on Irregular Cyber Warfare", citing the masters like Sun Tzu, von Clausewitz, Mao, Che, and the usual characters. It tries to answer:...as an insurgent, which is in a weaker power position vis-a-vis a stronger nation state; how does cyber warfare plays an integral part in the irregular cyber conflicts in the twenty-first century between nation-states and violent non-state actors or insurgenciesI thought I'd write a rebuttal.None of these people provide any value. If you want to figure out cyber insurgency, then you want to focus on the technical "cyber" aspects, not "insurgency". I regularly read military articles about cyber written by those, like in the above article, which demonstrate little experience in cyber.The chief technical lesson for the cyber insurgent is the Birthday Paradox. Let's say, hypothetically, you go to a party with 23 people total. What's the chance that any two people at the party have the same birthday? The answer is 50.7%. With a party of 75 people, the chance rises to 99.9% that two will have the same birthday.The paradox is that your intuitive way of calculating the odds is wrong. You are thinking the odds are like those of somebody having the same birthday as yourself, which is in indeed roughly 23 out of 365. But we aren't talking about you vs. the remainder of the party, we are talking about any possible combination of two people. This dramatically changes how we do the math.In cryptography, this is known as the "Birthday Attack". One crypto task is to uniquely fingerprint documents. Historically, the most popular way of doing his was with an algorithm known as "MD5" which produces 128-bit fingerprints. Given a document, with an MD5 fingerprint, it's impossible to create a second document with the same fingerprint. However, with MD5, it's possible to create two documents with the same fingerprint. In other words, we can't modify only one document to get a match, but we can keep modifying two documents until their fingerprints match. Like a room, finding somebody with your birthday is hard, finding any two people with the same birthday is easier.The same principle works with insurgencies. Accomplishing one specific goal is hard, but accomplishing any goal is easy. Trying to do a narrowly defined task to disrupt the enemy is hard, but it's easy to support a group of motivated hackers and let them do any sort of disruption they can come up with.The above article suggests a means of using cyber to disrupt a carrier attack group. This is an example of something hard, a narrowly defined attack that is unlikely to actually work in the real world.Conversely, consider the attacks attributed to North Korea, like those against Sony or the Wannacry virus. These aren't the careful planning of a small state actor trying to accomplish specific goals. These are the actions of an actor that supports hacker groups, and lets them loose without a lot of oversight and direction. Wannacry in particular is an example of an undirected cyber attack. We know from our experience with network worms that its effects were impossible to predict. Somebody just stuck the newly discovered NSA EternalBlue payload into an existing virus framework and let it run to see what happens. As we worm experts know, nobody could have predicted the results of doing so, not even its creators.Another example is the DNC election hacks. The reason we can attribute them to Russia is because it wasn't their narrow goal. Instead, by looking at things like their URL shortener, we can see that they flailed around broadly all over cyberspace. The DNC was just one of thei | Hack Guideline | Wannacry | |
|
2017-06-05 16:15:45 | Some non-lessons from WannaCry (lien direct) | This piece by Bruce Schneier needs debunking. I thought I'd list the things wrong with it.The NSA 0day debateSchneier's description of the problem is deceptive:When the US government discovers a vulnerability in a piece of software, however, it decides between two competing equities. It can keep it secret and use it offensively, to gather foreign intelligence, help execute search warrants, or deliver malware. Or it can alert the software vendor and see that the vulnerability is patched, protecting the country -- and, for that matter, the world -- from similar attacks by foreign governments and cybercriminals. It's an either-or choice.The government doesn't "discover" vulnerabilities accidentally. Instead, when the NSA has a need for something specific, it acquires the 0day, either through internal research or (more often) buying from independent researchers.The value of something is what you are willing to pay for it. If the NSA comes across a vulnerability accidentally, then the value to them is nearly zero. Obviously such vulns should be disclosed and fixed. Conversely, if the NSA is willing to pay $1 million to acquire a specific vuln for imminent use against a target, the offensive value is much greater than the fix value.What Schneier is doing is deliberately confusing the two, combing the policy for accidentally found vulns with deliberately acquired vulns.The above paragraph should read instead:When the government discovers a vulnerability accidentally, it then decides to alert the software vendor to get it patched. When the government decides it needs as vuln for a specific offensive use, it acquires one that meets its needs, uses it, and keeps it secret. After spending so much money acquiring an offensive vuln, it would obviously be stupid to change this decision and not use it offensively.Hoarding vulnsSchneier also says the NSA is "hoarding" vulns. The word has a couple inaccurate connotations.One connotation is that the NSA is putting them on a heap inside a vault, not using them. The opposite is true: the NSA only acquires vulns it for which it has an active need. It uses pretty much all the vulns it acquires. That can be seen in the ShadowBroker dump, all the vulns listed are extremely useful to attackers, especially ETERNALBLUE. Efficiency is important to the NSA. Your efficiency is your basis for promotion. There are other people who make their careers finding waste in the NSA. If you are hoarding vulns and not using them, you'll quickly get ejected from the NSA.Another connotation is that the NSA is somehow keeping the vulns away from vendors. That's like saying I'm hoarding naked selfies of myself. Yes, technically I'm keeping them away from you, but it's not like they ever belong to you in the first place. The same is true the NSA. Had it never acquired the ETERNALBLUE 0day, it never would've been researched, never found.The VEPSchneier describes the "Vulnerability Equities Process" or "VEP", a process that is supposed to manage the vulnerabilities the government gets.There's no evidence the VEP process has ever been used, at least not with 0days acquired by the NSA. The VEP allows exceptions for important vulns, and all the NSA vulns are important, so all are excepted from the process. Since the NSA is in charge of the VEP, of course, this is at the sole discretion of the NSA. Thus, the entire point of the VEP process goes away.Moreover, it can't work in many cases. The vulns acquired by the NSA often come with clauses that mean they can't be shared.New classes of vulnsOne reason sellers forbid 0days from being shared is because they use new classes of vulnerabilities, such that sha | Guideline | Wannacry |
1
We have: 4 articles.
We have: 4 articles.
To see everything:
Our RSS (filtrered)
