STE WILLIAMS

RAMBleed picks up Rowhammer, smashes DRAM until it leaks apps’ crypto-keys, passwords, other secrets

Bit boffins from Australia, Austria, and the US have expanded upon the Rowhammer memory attack technique to create more dangerous variation called RAMBleed that can expose confidential system memory.

The memory integrity issue tied to Rowhammer was known to Intel since at least 2012 and began to be explored in academic research in 2014. The following year, Google Project Zero researchers developed an exploit technique to gain kernel privileges by repeatedly writing to memory locations into order to change adjacent memory cells – a consequence of the electrical interaction between close-packed DRAM circuitry.

In a paper released online on Tuesday – with the now obligatory vulnerability illustration and dedicated domain, rambleed.com – Andrew Kwong (University of Michigan), Daniel Genkin (University of Michigan), Daniel Gruss (Graz University of Technology, and Yuval Yarom (University of Adelaide and Data61), describe a way to use the Rowhammer technique as a side channel to read data that should be off limits rather than write it.

It demonstrates it is possible for malware or a rogue user on a system to hammer bits in RAM to read information in memory belonging to other programs and users, and thus siphon off secrets in the process. This is not particularly brilliant for multi-tenant boxes in public clouds. The research is scheduled to be presented May, 2020, at the 41st IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.

“As opposed to previous Rowhammer attacks, which wrote to sensitive data, RAMBleed instead reads sensitive data, thereby breaching confidentiality,” said Kwong, a doctoral student, in an email to The Register.

The boffins in their paper observe that Rowhammer has been assumed to be relatively benign because there aren’t really any security implications to flipping bits within one’s own private memory where one already has write privileges. But they say their findings show that assumption is incorrect, and note that one of the mitigations proposed for Rowhammer – using error-correcting code (ECC) memory as a means of ensuring memory integrity – fails to block RAMBleed.

Three fingers, no more, no less

3 is the magic number (of bits): Flip ’em at once and your ECC protection can be Rowhammer’d

READ MORE

“After profiling the target’s memory, we show how RAMBleed can leak secrets stored within the target’s physical memory, achieving a read speed of about 3–4 bits per second,” the paper said.

Kwong said that while the attack was conducted with local code execution, its scope remains an open question. “Given the sophistication of the attack, I might characterize RAMBleed as being more academic for the moment, but as history has shown, what is academic research today soon becomes everybody’s problem tomorrow,” he said.

The researchers say they notified Intel, AMD, OpenSSH, Microsoft, Apple, and Red Hat of their findings, which were assigned CVE-2019-0174.

To prepare the attack, on Linux machines at least, the boffins abuse the Linux buddy allocator to ensure they have access to physically consecutive memory pages. After searching for bits that can be flipped using Rowhammer and recording these, the attack template is ready.

The researchers then exploit the predictability of the Linux physical memory allocator to coerce the victim’s memory page in the desired physical location, a technique they refer to as “Frame Feng Shui.” They then employ the RAMBleed technique to deduce the victim’s memory bits.

According to Kwong, it took almost four hours to read out enough of a 2048-bit RSA encryption key such that they could recover the rest with a variant of the Heninger-Shacham algorithm.

The paper express skepticism about existing software mitigations, noting that RAMBleed can bypass software-based integrity checks and memory partitioning schemes. Hardware-based mitigations may help, though one proposed measure, PARA (probabilistic adjacent row activation) has not been widely adopted and only offers a probabilistic (rather than consistent) security guarantee.

RAMBleed has been demonstrated on devices with DDR3 memory chips, and Rowhammer’s bit flipping on DDR4 components. DDR4 supports a defensive technique called Targeted Row Refresh, but its efficacy is uncertain. “Given the closed-source nature by which TRR is implemented, it is difficult for the security community to evaluate its effectiveness,” said Kwong. “While bit flips have been demonstrated on TRR before, the extent to which TRR mitigates RAMBleed remains an open question.”

Other techniques that may help include memory encryption, flushing keys from memory, and a less predictable memory allocator. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/11/rambleed_rowhammer_attack/

Wondering where that upcoming meeting with ‘Cheap Viagra’ came from? Spammers beat Gmail filters by abusing Google Calendar, Forms, Photos, Analytics…

Spammers are abusing the preferential treatment Google affords its own apps to score free passes through Gmail’s spam filters, it was claimed this week.

The ad giant greases the wheels so that incoming messages involving Google Calendar and other Big-G appsvslide through the filters and appear in Gmail inboxes, to ensure stuff generated and shared via its applications aren’t silenced by its own webmail product.

This situation, according to Kaspersky bods this week, is being exploited by scam artists to lob spam, phishing pages, and links to malicious malware-flinging websites at netizens, in some cases without triggering Gmail’s defenses.

“The spammer’s main task is to bypass the spam filter and deliver email to your inbox,” Kaspersky analyst Maria Vergelis helpfully reminded us. “As it happens, Google services often send email notifications to Gmail inboxes — and Google’s antispam module avoids flagging notifications from its own services as spam.”

Because Google usually allows these kinds of notifications through, scammers have found they can schedule a load of events in Google Calendar, inviting Gmail users en masse, and, when the set time draws near, generate a wave of reminders that include spam, phishing links, and so on, at least some of which slips through Gmail’s filters.

For example, the scammer could send a block of Gmail users a Calendar invite with the description being a link to a fake banking site. Rather than catch and filter out the e-nasty, Gmail would let the notification through and, when the person clicked the link, they would then go to the phony bank page. If the recipient has Calendar set to automatically accept invites, they would even get a pop-up notification of the spam message.

It is not only Calendar that is being gamed by scam artists. Vergelis noted that Google Photos is also a popular method for evading filters. In that case, the spam would either be placed within the image file or its description – for example the image could be a picture of a check and the description would be instructions on how to claim it, which would typically involve handing over personal information for nothing in return.

spam

It’s not you, it’s Big G: Sneaky spammers slip strangers spoofed spam, swamp Gmail sent files

READ MORE

Again, thanks to Google’s overly slick sharing features, the recipient would get a notification in their Gmail inbox that they had a shared photo waiting for them, and the spam itself would be delivered without being troubled by a filter. Additionally, Kaspersky’s team said Google Forms is being used to serve up fake surveys that harvest personal information, and Google Drive is being abused to host phishing pages, malware, and ad pages.

Even Google Analytics is being turned into a tool for criminals. Vergelis said her team reported seeing businesses targeted with visitor statistics PDF files containing the spammer’s links or information. In short, pretty much any Google service that integrates with Gmail can and will be abused to get as much spam into your inbox as possible, and the same goes for other services like Facebook and Twitter that allow users to send each other event notifications.

“The main problem is that messages sent through a legal service are assigned its standard headers, so spam filters often view them as harmless,” Vergelis explained. “And spam subjects vary widely, so interception requires a high threshold level in the spam filter, which can lead to excessive false positives. Spammers take advantage of this to exploit public services for their own purposes.”

In response to Kaspersky’s findings, a Google spokesperson provided the Russian antivirus biz the following statement, which was shared with El Reg:

“Google’s Terms of Service and product policies prohibit the spreading of malicious content on our services, and we work diligently to prevent and proactively address abuse.

“Combating spam is a never-ending battle, and while we’ve made great progress, sometimes spam gets through. We remain deeply committed to protecting all of our users from spam: we scan content on Photos for spam and provide users the ability to report spam in Calendar, Forms, Google Drive, and Google Photos, as well as block spammers from contacting them on Hangouts.

“In addition, we offer security protections for users by warning them of known malicious URLs via Google Chrome’s Safe Browsing filters.” ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/11/google_kaspersky_gmail_spam/

Suppliers Spotlighted After Breach of Border Agency Subcontractor

Attackers increasingly use third-party service providers to bypass organizations’ security. The theft of images from US Customs and Border Protection underscores the weakness suppliers can create.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials announced on Tuesday that an initial investigation into the breach of a subcontractor that maintains databases of photos indicated the leak involved images of fewer than 100,000 people. 

The announcement is the first assessment of the impact of the breach, disclosed by the border security agency on June 10. The incident involved a CBP contractor, which had — in violation of CBP policies — copied sensitive files of border crossings and stored images of license plates and travelers on an insecure computer. The agency stressed that its computer systems and infrastructure were not involved in the attack.

“Photographs were taken of travelers in vehicles entering and exiting the United States through a few specific lanes at a single land border Port of Entry over a 1.5 month period,” CBP said in a statement. “No other identifying information was included with the images.”

The breach is yet another incident reminding companies and government organizations to regularly assess the security of their suppliers. Earlier this month, LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics were notified by AMCA, their supplier of debt collection services, that information on nearly 20 million of their customers had been potentially compromised by attackers. And in April, Mexican media firm Cultura Colectiva inadvertently leaked 540 million records from Facebook users because it did not protect the Amazon S3 container on which it stored the data.

“It is critical that organizations prioritize the security and access controls of their vendors, providers, and partners,” said Sherrod DeGrippo, senior director of threat research and detection at data security firm Proofpoint. “These groups regularly handle sensitive data and must be examined by organizations thoroughly as they have the same culpability as the organization itself.”

DeGrippo recommends that subcontractors’ security posture be regularly reviewed and threat profiles created to establish needed defenses.

CBP did not name the latest subcontractor. Yet earlier in May, an attacker breached the network of government contractor Percepsys, a maker of license plate scanning and recognition systems, posting more than 65,000 files online, according to a May 23 article in The Regster.

In its statement, however, CBP stressed it has not see any malicious use of the data to date. “As of today, none of the image data has been identified on the Dark Web or Internet,” the agency’s spokesperson said in a statement.

The breach notification comes at a time when the CBP is expanding its technologies used to track travelers, including facial recognition, license plate identification, and social media tracking. Pointing to the current breach, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the plans dangerous because government agencies and their contractors cannot keep such information safe.

“This incident further underscores the need to put the brakes on these efforts and for Congress to investigate the agency’s data practices,” said Neema Singh Guliani, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, in statement. “The best way to avoid breaches of sensitive personal data is not to collect and retain such data in the first place.”

In 2015, the Office of Personnel Management discovered that the records of 25.7 million people had been stolen through a series of network intrusions, including into the systems of contractors.

In both breaches, because a government agency isinvolved and it is difficult to prove that the breaches caused harm, there will be little that consumers or citizens can do, said Robert Cattanach, a partner at the international law firm Dorsey Whitney. 

“US Courts have been reluctant to award damages absent a showing of specific and concrete harm,” he said in a statement. 

Governments are finding it difficult to create policy to deal with the rapid advancement of technology.

“Rapidly evolving technology that collects vast amounts of individual data, coupled with the dramatic cultural differences between various countries that collect it, make this an even more challenging problem for individuals and their political systems to reconcile,” he said.

CBP is currently scrutinizing its subcontractor’s investigation into the breach, the agency said.

“CBP has removed from service all equipment related to the breach and is closely monitoring all CBP work by the subcontractor,” it said. “CBP requires that all contractors and service providers maintain appropriate data integrity and cybersecurity controls and follow all incident response notification and remediation procedures.”

Related Content

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT’s Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/suppliers-spotlighted-after-breach-of-border-agency-subcontractor/d/d-id/1334936?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Cross-Site Scripting Errors Continue to Be Most Common Web App Flaw

In vulnerability disclosure programs, organizations are paying more in total for XSS issues than any other vulnerability type, HackerOne says.

Cross-site scripting (XSS) errors that allow attackers to inject malicious code into otherwise benign websites continue to be the most common web application vulnerability across organizations.

Bug bounty firm HackerOne recently analyzed data on more than 120,000 security vulnerabilities reported to organizations through the end of 2018 by the hacker community via public and private bug bounty programs. HackerOne’s customers classified the vulnerabilities and ranked the top 10 of them by impact, severity, and weakness type.

The analysis showed XSS to be the most common issue for most organizations, even though the threat is often downplayed because it does not always lead to large-scale information breaches,” says Miju Han, director of program management at HackerOne.

“Our data tells a different story because companies pay out for XSS far more than they do for any other vulnerability class,” Han says. In fact, of the $55 million that bug hunters in HackerOne’s program have earned so far in total, some $8 million has been from reporting XSS vulnerabilities alone, she says. “XSS is important for companies to guard against. XSS is here to stay,”

HackerOne’s vulnerability analysis revealed other trends as well. The growing adoption of hybrid and multicloud environments, for instance, is putting organizations at increased risk from vulnerabilities such as server-side request forgery (SSRF). These are flaws that allow attackers to read, update, and modify internal resources and connect to services such as HTTP-enabled databases. Much of the exposure is the result of organizations that previously didn’t store data online now going all-in on cloud technologies without knowing how to protect their data first.

Information disclosure weaknesses in an application, such as a broken or missing control, are another category of security vulnerabilities that organizations are increasingly becoming exposed to as they adopt cloud environments.

HackerOne’s analysis showed that the security vulnerabilities that organizations are willing to pay the most for — on a per vulnerability disclosure basis — include SSRF, privilege escalation flaws, and insecure direct object reference (IDOR) issues that allow attackers to bypass authorization and access control measures.

Such flaws are not as commonly reported as XSS flaws. However, many companies actively give incentives to hackers to search for them because of the risk they pose, according to HackerOne’s report summarizing its findings. Other low-volume but high-impact web application security flaws for which organizations are willing to pay more include business logic errors and code injection errors.

Interestingly, only four of the vulnerabilities in HackerOne’s top 10 list are also on OWASP’s top 10 list — a resource that many organizations use to identify top risks. The overlapping flaws including XSS, information disclosure, and code injection errors. But some security vulnerabilities, like XML external entities (XXE) flaws, which ranks fourth in OWASP’s Top 10, are nowhere to be found on the HackerOne list.

The reason for the difference is that HackerOne’s list represents real-world security risks and not just vulnerabilities ranked by volume, Han says.

“Companies are awarding bounties for these vulnerabilities because they could actually have substantial impact on their businesses,” she notes. “Our data tells the story of which attack vectors hackers are most likely to employ and then which attack vectors are the most valuable to companies.”

Related Content:

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/cross-site-scripting-errors-continue-to-be-most-common-web-app-flaw/d/d-id/1334935?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

FBI Warns of Dangers in ‘Safe’ Websites

Criminals are using TLS certificates to convince users that fraudulent sites are worthy of their trust.

One of the most common mechanisms used to secure web browser sessions — and to assure consumers that their transactions are secure — is also being used by criminals looking to gain victims’ trust in phishing campaigns. The FBI has issued a public service announcement defining the problem and urging individuals to go beyond simply trusting any “https” URL. 

Browser publishers and website owners have waged successful campaigns to convince consumers to look for lock icons and the “https:” prefix as indicators that a website is encrypted and, therefore, secure. The problem, according to the FBI and security experts, is that many individuals incorrectly assume that an encrypted site is secure from every sort of security issue.

Craig Young, computer security researcher for Tripwire’s VERT (vulnerability and exposure research team) recognizes the conflict between wanting consumers to feel secure and guarding against dangerous over-confidence. “Over the years, there has been a battle of words around how to communicate online security. Website security can be discussed at a number of levels with greatly different implications,” he says.

“On its own, however, the padlock does not actually confirm that the user is actually connected with a server from the business they expect,” Young explains. “Unfortunately, there is still no solid solution for empowering the general public to discern phishing or scam sites with 100% effectiveness.”

In the FBI’s PSA, the bureau points out that criminals are increasingly incorporating website certificates in phishing email messages impersonating known companies and individuals. The trustworthy-looking URLs take the victims to pages that seek sensitive and personal information.

“This isn’t new; cyber criminals have been orchestrating these kinds of phishing campaigns for several years,” says Kevin Bocek, vice president of security strategy and threat intelligence at Venafi. He explains, “In 2017, security researchers uncovered over 15,000 certificates containing the word ‘PayPal’ that were being used in attacks. Since then it’s become clear that bad actors have an entire supply chain in place on the dark web to get trustworthy TLS certificates to use in all kinds of malicious attacks.”

Bocek says that researchers have found definitive evidence of TLS certificates for sale on the dark web, with prices for highly trustworthy certificates reaching more than a thousand dollars. He sees greater visibility and transparency as key assets in fighting the proliferation of these “trustworthy” certificates used in fraudulent ways.

Other technologies may eventually provide additional weapons against the criminals. Young says, “In the long run, the best available solution to this problem is probably the use of newer standards like WebAuthN to prevent naïve users from inadvertently divulging site credentials to a phisher.”

The FBI’s PSA doesn’t recommend new technology, instead suggesting behavioral defenses against the phishing attacks. The Bureau recommends questioning the intent of email messages, confirming the authenticity of messages before divulging sensitive information, looking for mis-spellings or domain inconsistencies, and tempering the overall trust in a site simply because it displays a green lock icon.

Related content:

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/fbi-warns-of-dangers-in-safe-websites/d/d-id/1334930?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

What 3 Powerful GoT Women Teach Us about Cybersecurity

Imagine Game of Thrones’ Daenerys Targaryen, Arya Stark, and Cersei Lannister on the front lines in the real-world battleground of enterprise security.

Season 8 of the award-winning and critically acclaimed HBO Game of Thrones series ended a long, exciting saga spanning almost a decade, keeping viewers spellbound by the citizens of Westeros and Essos. It was dominated by three powerful women: Daenerys Targaryen, Arya Stark, and Cersei Lannister. Each of these fictional leaders has a lesson for us in the real world of cybersecurity.

Lesson 1: Security policies shouldn’t lay waste to user productivity.
First is Daenerys Targaryen. As Daenerys evolves through the series — and gets kicked around by everyone — she finally gives in to her worst instincts. In the end, she unleashes her most formidable weapon, Drogon, her last dragon, in an epic example of overkill, burning to the ground the very center of power she coveted: Kings Landing and the Iron Throne. Cybersecurity leaders, who live day to day with the frustrations of managing enterprise security, can take a lesson from Daenerys in how to avoid implementing heavy-handed policies.

For example, if an employee triggers a security incident by opening an Excel file from an unknown email sender, you would never implement a total ban on the use of Excel. Similarly, punitive measures against users who repeatedly fail a phishing test would likewise not be a productive response. Nor would you excoriate the user for their stupidity, however tempting. You want the organization on your side, including your most valuable allies in the various lines of business and the C-suite. After all, you don’t need stealth IT to rise from the ashes of a scorched earth policy or an army of disgruntled users attacking your rear flank. Rather than chastising users or calling them out, help them by reinforcing the value of security training.

Lesson 2: Value your eccentrics and white hat hackers.
Up next is Arya Stark, who wields a small sword in her left hand, is wolf-blooded, impulsive, and “always difficult to tame.” She offers a metaphor for staffing challenges in the face of ever-more-sophisticated criminals probing your attack surface with innovative new types of malicious code and delivery mechanisms. As defending your corporate networks becomes more and more of a black art, you need the small players and specialists like Arya who was bored by embroidery and other “lady-like” pursuits. These brilliant minds may be fascinated by cyber war and training in the use of technical arms. Also, like Arya, they may not care about the throne. They may not be ready for leadership roles but their specialized skills can be invaluable in key individual contributor roles.

What’s more, when you embrace diversity and welcome the nonconformist into your team, it could pay handsomely in knowledge and the building of problem-solving tools. An unconventional employee, for example, might be the penetration tester who saves you when hackers launch what amounts to your cyber battle of Winterfell. Seek out the strengths of your analysts; that person may have the ability to think like a criminal or a bad actor, and may even have the cybersecurity equivalent of a Valyrian steel dagger up her sleeve when it’s needed.

Lesson 3: Be careful when you engage your adversary by hacking back.
Hail Cersei Lannister, the First of Her Name and Protector of the Seven Kingdoms — and our third and perhaps strongest woman leader in GoT. Well, at least she was until she made the fateful mistake of provoking Daenerys to attack King’s Landing by killing her friend, Missandei. We know that didn’t work out so well. It’s the same mistake many IT professionals make when they embark on offensive security: They underestimate the will and tenacity of the enemy, who often has little to lose.

The popularity of offensive hacking — counter-attacking a hacker as deterrence — is betrayed by the lack of offensive hacking courses available. So, consider well before taking your armies down this road. First of all, there are legal issues around hacking anyone — even a criminal or part of your own organization. An even more important consideration when triggering your cyber enemies: You have only a few people who are most likely already stretched thin defending a large attack surface. And on the other side of your firewall? There may be a provoked adversary with time, numbers, technology, and persistence on their side. Once you engage them, be prepared to survive an onslaught. Cersei, too, had a wall. But it didn’t offer much protection against a flying, fire-breathing dragon, and an endless stream of the Unsullied and Dothraki.

Related Content:

Orion Cassetto, senior product maester at Exabeam, has nearly a decade of experience marketing cybersecurity and web application security products. Prior to Exabeam, Orion worked for other notable security vendors including Imperva, Incapsula, Distil Networks, and Armorize … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/what-3-powerful-got-women-teach-us-about-cybersecurity--/a/d-id/1334906?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

‘Have I Been Pwned’ Is Up for Sale

Troy Hunt, who has been running HIBP solo for six years, launched “Project Svalbard” so the site can evolve with more resources, funding, and support.

Troy Hunt is seeking a buyer for Have I Been Pwned (HIBP), the online service he built to inform consumers and businesses of compromised data.

Hunt founded HIBP in 2013, around the time data breaches were ramping up, to help people learn when their usernames and passwords were compromised in a breach and how many times their credentials had been exposed. In the six years since, HIBP has grown to include nearly 8 billion breached records and about 3 million subscribers, Hunt said in a blog.

Commercial subscribers rely on HIBP to alert members of identity theft programs when their data is found in a breach, enable security companies to provide services to their customers, protect large online assets from credential-stuffing attacks, and prevent fraudulent purchases. Global governments use it to protect departments; law enforcement uses it in investigations.

As data breaches have grown in size, number, and complexity, Hunt continued to manage the site solo, updating HIBP with breached records and alerting victims. But things reached a turning point in January with the Collection #1 breach: Hunt, himself, discovered 87 GB worth of data in a folder containing 12,000-plus files, nearly 773 email addresses, and more than 21 million unique passwords from data breaches going back to 2008. He uploaded it all to HIBP; since then, the site has seen a massive influx in activity, taking him away from other responsibilities.

But Hunt also acknowledged the need for support was a long time coming. “Each and every disclosure to an organisation that didn’t even know their data was out there fell to me (and trust me, that’s massively time-consuming and has proven to be the single biggest bottleneck to loading new data),” he wrote. Further, he handled every media interview, support request, and task needed to run HIBP. Hunt was the single point of failure, which he said had to change.

The acquisition is dubbed Project Svalbard (named for the world’s largest seed bank, in Norway), and Hunt is working with KPMG to find a buyer. He plans to remain with HIBP following the acquisition and continue to build new capabilities into the platform.

Read more details here.

Dark Reading’s Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/have-i-been-pwned-is-up-for-sale/d/d-id/1334932?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Microsoft Issues Fixes for 88 Vulnerabilities

Four of the flaws are publicly known but none have been listed as under active attack.

Microsoft today patched 88 software vulnerabilities and issued four advisories as part of its monthly Patch Tuesday update. Four are publicly known; none have been seen exploited in the wild.

The June fixes released today cover a broad range of products and services including Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, Edge, Office, Office Services and Web Apps, ChakraCore, Skype for Business, Microsoft Lync, Exchange Server, Azure, and SQL Server. Twenty-one patches were deemed Critical in severity, 66 are categorized as Important, and only one is ranked Moderate.

While none of the bugs patched this month are under active attack, this is an especially large batch of fixes.

Here are some of the noteworthy bugs in Microsoft’s June roundup.

Publicly known vulnerabilities were disclosed by security researcher SandboxEscaper via Twitter last month: CVE-2019-1053 (sandboxescape) is a flaw in the Windows Shell that could allow elevation of privilege on affected systems by escaping a sandbox; it affects all Windows operating systems. CVE-2019-1069 (BearLPE), an elevation of privilege vulnerability in Windows Task Scheduler, exists in the way Task Scheduler Service validates some file operations.

Other publicly known bugs include CVE-2019-0973 (InstallerBypass), which occurs when the Windows Installer fails to properly sanitize input, leading to an insecure library loading behavior. An attacker could exploit this to run malicious code with elevated privileges. CVE-2019-1064 (CVE-2019-0841 BYPASS) could also be used to elevate privileges on target systems.

Exploits for all of these were posted on GitHub by the researcher, who had published zero-days in the past. When the bugs were publicly disclosed in May, researchers predicted the likelihood of danger was low; still, there remained a chance the code would be integrated into malware. Even though the proof-of-concept code was posted online, this didn’t happen.

Remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities were common. Three Critical vulnerabilities patched were Hyper-V RCE bugs (CVE-2019-0620, CVE-2019-0709, CVE-2019-0722). This stood out to Jimmy Graham, Qualys’ senior director of product management. All would let an authenticated user on a guest system run arbitrary code on the host. While Microsoft says exploitation is less likely, he says “these patches should still be prioritized for Hyper-V systems.”

Also patched today were CVE-2019-1019, a Windows Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability, and CVE-2019-1040, a Windows NTLM Tampering Vulnerability. Both were reported by Preempt.

Greg Wiseman, senior security researcher with Rapid7, calls CVE-2019-1019 a “nasty-looking” bug that could enable an attacker to steal a session key using a specially crafted NETLOGON message; in doing so, they could access other systems by posing as the original user, he says. Researchers found that although domain controllers would deny requests if the expected machine name was different from the one that established the secure channel, the controllers would accept requests if the computer name field was missing, they explain in a blog post.

As for CVE-2019-1040, Preempt researchers bypassed the Message Integrity Code protection in NTLM authentication and could change any field in the NTLM message flow. The bypass could let attacker relay authentication attempts which have negotiated signing to another server, while removing the signing requirement. All servers that don’t enforce signing are vulnerable.

Related Content:

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance Technology, where she covered financial … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/microsoft-issues-fixes-for-88-vulnerabilities/d/d-id/1334934?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Researchers crack digital safe using HSM flaw

Two French researchers have found a bug in a hardware security module (HSM) that, if exploited, could enable an attacker to steal an organization’s most highly prized secrets.

An HSM is a physical security device that stores a range of secrets, including the digital keys used in encryption. It acts as a digital safe for secrets used in a variety of situations.

HSMs are used to store the digital keys used in certificates during public key encryption, for example, or in card payment systems. Even hardware-based cryptocurrency wallets use them. In short, these are devices designed to keep secrets under physical lock and key in very sensitive situations when software solutions simply won’t do.

An insecure HSM is a big deal.

Jean-Baptiste Bédrune and Gabriel Campana, both researchers at French security company Ledger, published the details of the hack in a technical paper (written in French). They will be presenting their research at the English-speaking BlackHat Las Vegas conference in August. Cryptosense analysed it to work out what they did.

The HSM in this case, which comes from an unnamed vendor, is a card that can be plugged into a computer’s PCIe bus. It is certified to level 3 of the US government’s FIPS 140-2 standard.

The researchers found that the firmware built into the module was signed, but not encrypted. This meant that they could analyze how it worked, and they found that it allowed them to upload and run additional custom code.

They used the software development kit (SDK) provided with the HSM to upload a custom firmware module to the unit. This gave them access to a shell inside the HSM that they could use to run a debugger and analyze the inner workings of the unit.

From there, they ran a fuzzer, which sends a lot of queries to the HSM’s PKCS #11 API. PKCS #11 is a cryptographic API created by RSA. They hit the API with a large number of parameters looking for data that might throw the HSM into an unstable state. These tests uncovered several buffer overflow error bugs that they could trigger by sending the HSM certain commands.

The researchers were able to write a module that they could run as unsigned custom firmware on the HSM that enabled them to dump all its secrets. They could recover keys, read secrets directly from the HSM’s memory, and dump the contents of the module’s flash storage, including its decryption key. The paper, translated from French, says:

The content is then decrypted offline, revealing all the secrets contained in the HSM. The exploit is a simple binary to run on the host.

Because the firmware is stored on its 64Mb flash memory, it is also persistent; you can’t get rid of it by simply rebooting the HSM.

The researchers have already sent the details of the bug to the vendor and the system has since been patched. However, it’s entirely possible (and likely) that many of these systems are still out there and exploitable in the wild.

Apparently, in the digital world as in the physical one, safe cracking is alive and well.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/gJknsLIvLJQ/

It’s a SCAM: Send Bitcoin or your company’s reputation is TOAST!

My my, 19ckouUP2E22aJR5BPFdf7jP2oNXR3bezL, you’ve been a busy little Bitcoin blackmail scam wallet, haven’t you?

According to the Bitcoin Abuse Database, since at least late last month, that’s the Bitcoin wallet that somebody’s been telling people to send money to, lest their websites’ reputations get ruined.

Here’s the TL;DR version, as summed up by the first recipient of the blackmail extortion message to report it to the database:

Full-throttle garbage details

And here are the details: The extortion is coming from spoofed email addresses and threatening to rain down locusts and hellfire and halitosis unless the recipient sends the blackmailer 0.3 BTC (US $2,385.37).

If you don’t send the money, the extortionist threatens, they’ll send millions of emails from your domain, leave boatloads of derogatory reviews about your site, and spoof your domain so as to submit foul messages to other people’s contact forms.

It’s a full-service reputation-ruining package aimed at your site and its/your reputation. Here’s the full text of the threat:

Hey. Soon your hosting account and your domain xxx.nl will be blocked forever, and you will receive tens of thousands of negative feedback from angry people.

Here is a list of what you get if you don’t follow my requirements:
+ abuse spamhouse for aggressive web spam tens of thousands of negative
+ reviews about you and your website from angry people for aggressive
+ web and email spam lifetime blocking of your hosting account for
+ aggressive web and email spam lifetime blocking of your domain for
+ aggressive web and email spam Thousands of angry complaints from angry
+ people will come to your mail and messengers for sending you a lot of
+ spam complete destruction of your reputation and loss of clients
+ forever for a full recovery from the damage you need tens of thousands
+ of dollars

Do you want this?

If you do not want the above problems, then before June 1, 2019, you need to send me 0.3 BTC to my Bitcoin wallet: 19ckouUP2E22aJR5BPFdf7jP2oNXR3bezL

How do I do all this to get this result:
1. I will send 30 messages to 13 000 000 sites with contact forms with offensive messages with the address of your site, that is, in this situation, you and the spammer and insult people. And everyone will not care that it is not you.
2. I’ll send 300 messages to 9,000,000 email addresses and very intrusive advertisements for making money and offer a free iPhone with your website address xxx.nl and your contact details. And then send out abusive messages with the address of your site.
3. I will do aggressive spam on blogs, forums and other sites (in my database there are 35 978 370 sites and 315900 sites from which you will definitely get a huge amount of abuse) of your site xxx.nl. After such spam, the spamhouse will turn its attention on you and after several abuses your host will be forced to block your account for life. Your domain registrar will also block your domain permanently.

A twist on sextortion scams

This is basically just a twist on the sextortion scams we’ve been writing and talking about over the past few months.

While sextortion combines sex and extortion, with online crooks claiming to have embarrassing pictures of you that they threaten to send to friends and family, this new scam instead focuses on the reputation of your site. It’s easy to see how individuals or businesses might well take that threat seriously, given how much money is at stake when you’re talking about reputation.

You haven’t been hacked

Just like with sextortion scams, these reputation extortion scams don’t mean you’ve been hacked.

Could an attacker do everything that this one is claiming they’ll do? Yes, but it sounds like an awful amount of work, doesn’t it? Given how many targets this is getting spammed out to – the Bitcoin Abuse Database shows that these are no targeted emails but are instead being received by loads of people, in waves – well, it sounds more like wishful thinking than a carefully plotted attack. If an attacker really could hijack an account, wouldn’t they just do it and then demand ransom?

The threat is a pack of lies. It’s also a sign that digital extortion scammers are trying something new, as they always are. For example, we’ve seen them try to evade blocklists and spam filters by doing things like writing out their emails, taking a screenshot, and pasting it into the message body. Then they’ll stick in a QR code for the Bitcoin address you’re supposed to send funds to. Wouldn’t want to discourage their targets by the inability to cut and paste a gnarly Bitcoin address!

In other, arguably more convincing, attacks, we’ve also seen extortionists claim to have what’s purportedly one of “your” passwords. It’s meant to make their claims to have hijacked your system all the more credible.

They haven’t. What they’ve done is they’ve used a list of breached or most commonly used passwords. Sooner or later they’ll spam somebody who truly did use that password, and that person will possibly panic and send in the money.

Yet another reason not to reuse passwords!

What to do?

Into the trash with it. It’s 100% bunk!

Find out more about the common traits in extortion scams

(Watch directly on YouTube if the video won’t play here.)

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/QbO3ajh7X7k/