Tag Archives: Priority Patching

Puzzling: Five years old critical vulnerabilities exploited in November 2017

26 November 2017

Section Exploited Vulnerabilities of the Recorded Future Cyber Daily is sometimes really frightening. On November 9th, 2017, 249 successful exploits of CVE-2012-1823, a vulnerability in PHP, were recorded. This is hard to believe because CVE-2012-1823 was published on May 11th, 2012. Although a patch was available at the date of publication, it seems that the operators of this systems were not able to implement them within the past five years.

However, it would have been of urgent need in this case. CVE-2012-1823 is a so-called RCE (Remote Code Execution) vulnerability, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on a victim’s computer, and, in the worst case, to hijack the victim’s network.

RCE vulnerabilities are included in the critical vulnerabilities. Critical vulnerabilities are

  • exploitable from the network
  • need only low or medium skills to exploit
  • need no authentication
  • cause great damage, have high severity
  • allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on the victims computer

If an application system is operated in the DMZ, critical vulnerabilities must be patched directly upon publication to prevent attackers from getting onto your network. Or at least, between the time of publication and an exploit or proof of concept shows up. Since examples of how to exploit this PHP vulnerability were available in early May 2012, immediate action was required.

The big question is: Why were this vulnerable PHP versions not directly patched?

Exploitation of older vulnerabilities is not an isolated case. The HPE 2016 Cyber Risk Report shows, that in 2016

  • 47% of successful exploits use five or more years old vulnerabilities.
  • 68% of successful exploits use three or more years old vulnerabilities, 47% of them were critical vulnerabilities.
  • Stuxnet, CVE-2010-2568, was used in 29% of successful exploits.

An analysis of the critical vulnerabilities by vendors shows, that more critical vulnerabilities were found in non-Microsoft products than in Microsoft products.

Critical vulnerabilities 2010 - 2016

Critical vulnerabilities 2010 – 2016 by vendors. Click to enlarge.

But automated patch management is only available for Microsoft and few of the other vendors’ (e.g. Adobe, Oracle, SAP) products. Thus, we can expect that many critical vulnerabilities remain unpatched, which results in an ever-growing pool of opportunities for cyber criminals.

An ever growing pool of opportunities

An ever-growing pool of opportunities. Click to enlarge.

1) For the chart above I assumed that 50% of critical vulnerabilities remain unpatched. This assumption is based on the analysis of the 2017 NIST NVD data as of August 31st, 2017.

Since no automated patch management exists for PHP we can expect, that CVE-2012-1823 was rarely patched. But the worst is yet to come: From the HPE 2016 Cyber Risk Report we learn, that even six years old Microsoft vulnerabilities (Stuxnet, CVE-2010-2568) are not patched.

How to tackle this issue? From my point of view, the cause is compliance driven security. We often do patching of everything to meet compliance with a certain standard, instead of focusing on the real important issues, e.g., the critical vulnerabilities. Or, in other words, we close a lot of mouse holes while the barn door remains wide open.

WIth this, we must move from patching to vulnerability management, and priority patching for the critical vulnerabilities. Through a differentiated inspection of vulnerabilities we get out of the patch treadmill and can start working on the important cyber security issues.

By the way, if you haven’t subscribed to the Recorded Future Cyber Daily yet, consider to do it this week.

Have a great week.

Advertisements

Some thoughts on “Ransomware a real risk for SCADA networks”

5 June 2017

By now the ‘Air gapping’ myth should be expunged from every ICS/SCADA manager on earth.” I really like this statement from Daniel Cohen-Sason, published on 23 May 2017 in the CYBERBIT blog.

From my point of view, the ‘Air Gap’ era ended with the introduction of portable engineering stations about 30 years ago.

Modern OT networks are often designed on the basis of the ISA 95 Standard with network zones and security devices, e.g. firewalls, to control the communications flow between the process control and SCADA systems across the zones. Modern production requires a lot of Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication between the production networks zones and between the production network and the business network. Besides this M2M communication Human-to-Machine (H2M) communication is required, e.g. for operator access from the business network and for remote maintenance.

For M2M and H2M interaction communication channels must be opened on the firewalls. With this, there is always a chance that malware can spread across such required connections. Furthermore, cyber attackers can gain access, e.g. through remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, after they hijacked a M2M communications endpoint in the business network. We dealt with this very effectively in the past 20 years.

Many of the required connections use the SMB protocol for exchange of data. That’s no problem per se. The problem is, that we still use Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 in the manufacturing industry which cannot work with the latest versions of the SMB protocol for data exchange.

Since WannaCry exploited a vulnerability in SMB version 1.0, it was only a matter of time before WannaCry would find its way across a required connection from the business network to the production network.

How to deal with the problem?

  • Priority patching.

The systems at the border between the business network and the production network must me patched with highest priority. Although this is somewhat tricky to achieve in WSUS, it’s worth to deal with this WSUS feature. In addition to the operating system components, all application components must be patched as well. The same applies to Linux based systems.

  • Deactivating SMB.

Is a great means in the case of an emergency, and part of a long-term data exchange strategy.

  • Set up asset and vulnerability management.

At least all systems at the endpoints of required M2M and H2M connections must be included. This enables you to evaluate the scale of the problem in the case of a new vulnerability.

  • Faster innovation cycles.

At least for the systems at the perimeter of the production network we must allow for shorter innovation cycles. With Windows 8, Windows 10, and Windows Server 2012, new versions of the SMB protocol are used which are not affected by WannaCry. Don’t forget to deactivate the SMB V1.0 compatibility in the this versions.

This includes the technology used for data exchange. For example, the widely used Robocopy fosters the spreading of WannaCry because it is based on the SMB protocol.

  • Increase the level of isolation.

Start with challenging the required M2M and H2M connections. Eliminate every connection without a business purpose. For the remaining, check whether the best available security technology is used.

Take care!