In June 2020 we reported three vulnerabilities in Nagios XI 5.7.1 to the vendor.
The following CVE IDs were assigned to the issues :
CVE-2020-15901: Command Injection in Nagios XI web interface (RCE)
CVE-2020-15902: Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
CVE-2020-15903: Reserved, details will be given on vendor fix
CVE-2020-15901 and CVE-2020-15902 have meanwhile been fixed in version 5.7.2 according to the changelog on the Nagios website (https://www.nagios.com/downloads/nagios-xi/change-log/). CVE-2020-15903 is currently being worked on by the vendor and will probably be fixed in the near future.
Last week I attended ACM WiSec. Of course, only virtually. The first virtual conference I attended. Coincidentally, it was also the first conference I presented at. While the experience was quite different from a “real” conference, the organizers did a great job to make the experience as good as possible with, for example, a mattermost instance to interact with other conference participants.
In the following, I will list a few talks and papers that I either found very interesting or that generally stood out to me:
I should start by telling you that this post does not contain anything fundamentally new. Hence, if you already know the tools mentioned in the title, this post may probably not be for you. However, if you are not too familiar with these tools and want to understand a little bit more on how they work together, you should keep on reading.
First, let us get a high-level overview of the different tools. We begin with QEMU. QEMU is a piece of software to emulate hardware such as processors. Imagine, for example, that you are running an operating system such as Linux or Windows on a x86-64 machine and that you would like to analyze a binary that has been compiled for an ARM or MIPS processor. Of course, you can use static analysis on the binary, but if you want to find out more about the runtime behavior, well, it would be good to have a corresponding runtime environment. Continue reading “QEMU, Unicorn, Zelos, and AFL”
From the end of 2019 on, we reported two critical vulnerabilities in the Ivanti DSM Suite to the vendor. The following CVE IDs were assigned to the issues (but note that they have a status of RESERVED, i.e. titles and descriptions may change in the future):
CVE-2020-12441: Denial-of-Service (DoS) in Ivanti Service Manager HEAT Remote Control 7.4
CVE-2020-13793: Unsafe storage of AD credentials in Ivanti DSM netinst 5.1
So there was a pandemic, the whole world was under lockdown, and I got a bit depressed.
I needed something new in my life, so I decided to take my favorite dog out for a walk in the ATT&CK jungle to check out the newly added sub-techniques…
Digital networking is already widespread in many areas of life. In the healthcare industry, a clear trend towards networked devices is noticeable, so that the number of high-tech medical devices in hospitals is steadily increasing.
In this blog post, we want to elucidate a vulnerability we identified during the security assessment of a patient monitor. The device sends HL7 v2.x messages, such as observation results to HL7 v2.x capable electronic medical record (EMR) systems. A user with malicious intent can tamper these messages. As HL7 v2.x is a common medical communication standard, we also want to present how this kind of vulnerability may be mitigated. The assessment was part of the BSI project ManiMed, which we would like to present in the following section.
Nowadays, Bluetooth is an integral part of mobile devices. Smartphones interconnect with smartwatches and wireless headphones. By default, most devices are configured to accept Bluetooth connections from any
nearby unauthenticated device. Bluetooth packets are processed by the Bluetooth chip (also called a controller), and then passed to the host (Android, Linux, etc.). Both, the firmware on the chip and the host Bluetooth subsystem, are a target for Remote Code Execution (RCE) attacks.
One feature that is available on most classic Bluetooth implementations is answering over Bluetooth pings. Everything an attacker needs to know is the device’s Bluetooth address. Even if the target is not discoverable, it typically accepts connections if it gets addressed. For example, an attacker can run l2ping, which establishes an L2CAP connection and sends echo requests to the remote target.
In the following, we describe a Bluetooth zero-click short-distance RCE exploit against Android 9, which got assigned CVE-2020-0022 . We go through all steps required to establish a remote shell on a Samsung Galaxy S10e, which was working on an up-to-date Android 9 when reporting the issue on November 3 2019. The initial flaw used for this exploit is still present in Android 10, but we utilize an additional bug in Bionic (Android’s libc implementation), which makes exploitation way easier. The bug was finally fixed in the security patch from 1.2.2020 in A-143894715. Here is a demo of the full proof of concept:
With the current situation, it’s not easy to find the right angle to start this blog post, so I won’t even try… but with Troopers cancelled, my Bloodhound workshop went down the drain, and I didn’t get a chance to meet or catch up with all of you and share my latest BloodHound adventures. So I decided to write a quick post to share all this…
We recently came across an issue when playing around with VMware NSX-T which not anyone might be aware of when getting started with it. Because many of our customers start with transitioning to NSX-T, we want to share this with you. In short, the Distributed Firewall (DFW) of NSX-T can be easily bypassed in the default configuration because it only works effectively if at the same time, the SpoofGuard feature is enabled on all logical switch ports which is not the case by default.
Lately, we came across a remote code execution in a Tomcat web service by utilizing Expression Language. The vulnerable POST body field expected a number. When sending ${1+2} instead, the web site included a Java error message about a failed conversion to java.lang.Long from java.lang.String with value "3".
From that error message we learned a couple of things:
The application uses Java
We are able to execute EL expressions
Output from the EL engine is always returned as String
Whenever you are able to execute code within a Java Context, the most interesting part is to check whether we can get a Runtime object and execute arbitrary OS commands.
Sending ${Runtime.getRuntime()} resolves to java.lang.Runtime@de30bb. Great, so we can use Runtime.exec(String cmd) to execute arbitrary code? Continue reading “DNS exfiltration case study”
