This Week in Security

238 Articles

This Week In Security: Loop DOS, Flipper Responds, And More!

March 22, 2024 by 8 Comments

Here’s a fun thought experiment. UDP packets can be sent with an arbitrary source IP and port, so you can send a packet to one server, and could aim the response at another server. What happens if that response triggers another response? What if you could craft a packet that continues that cycle endlessly? That is essentially the idea behind Loop DoS (Denial of Service).

This unique avalanche of packets has been managed using specific implementations of several different network services, like TFTP, DNS, and NTP. There are several CVEs being used to track the issue, but CVE-2024-2169 is particularly odd, with the description that “Implementations of UDP application protocol are vulnerable to network loops.” This seems to be a blanket CVE for UDP, which is particularly inappropriate given that the first DoS of this sort was first reported in 2009 at the latest.

More details are available in a Google Doc. There some interesting tidbits there, like the existence of cross-protocol loops, and several legacy protocols that are vulnerable by design. The important thing to remember here is you have to have an accessible UDP port for this sort of attack to take place, so if you’re not using it, firewall it.

Flipper Flips Back

We’ve covered the saga of the Flipper Zero vs the Canadian government, in the context of car theft. The short version is that Canada has seen an uptick of car thefts from organized crime. Rather than meaningfully dealing with this problem, the Canadian government went looking for scapegoats, and found the Flipper Zero.

Well now, Flipper has responded, and put simply, the message is “stop the madness”. There has never been a confirmed case of using a flipper to steal a car, and it’s very unlikely it’s ever happened. On a modern car with proper rolling-code security, it’s not meaningfully possible to use the Flipper Zero for the theft. The two primary ways criminals actually steal cars are with dedicated keyfob repeaters and CAN bus hackers.

There is a petition to sign, and for Canadians, Flipper suggests contacting your local member of parliament. Continue reading “This Week In Security: Loop DOS, Flipper Responds, And More!” →

This Week In Security: Apple Backdoors Curl, Tor’s New Bridge, And GhostRace

March 15, 2024 by 8 Comments

OK, that headline is a bit of a cheap shot. But if you run the curl binary that Apple ships, you’re in for a surprise if you happen to use the --cacert flag. That flag specifies that TLS verification is only to be done using the certificate file specified. That’s useful to solve certificate mysteries, or to make absolutely sure that you’re connecting to the server you expect.

What’s weird here is that on a MacOS, using the Apple provided curl binary, --cacert doesn’t limit the program to the single certificate file. On an Apple system, the verification falls back to the system’s certificate store. This is an intentional choice by Apple, but not one that’s aimed particularly at curl. The real magic is in Apple’s SSL library, which forces the use of the system keychain.

The current state of things is that this option is simply not going to do the right thing in the Apple provided binary. It’s documented with the note that “this option is supported for backward compatibility with other SSL engines, but it should not be set.” It’s an unfortunate situation, and we’re hopeful that a workaround can be found to restore the documented function of this option. Continue reading “This Week In Security: Apple Backdoors Curl, Tor’s New Bridge, And GhostRace” →

This Week In Security: Blame The Feds, Emergency Patches, And The DMA

March 8, 2024 by No comments

The temptation to “take the money and run” was apparently too much for the leadership of the AlphV ransomware crime ring. You may have heard of this group as being behind the breach of Change Healthcare, and causing payment problems for nearly the entire US Healthcare system. And that hack seems to be key to what’s happened this week.

It’s known that a $22 million payment made it through the bitcoin maze to the AlphV wallet on the 1st. It’s believed that this is a payment from Change Healthcare to recover ransomed files. An important detail here is that AlphV is a ransomware-as-a-service provider, and the actual hacking is done by “affiliates”, who use that service, and AlphV handles the infrastructure, maintaining the actual malware, and serving as a payment processor. That last one is key here.

A couple days after that big payment landed in the AlphV account, a seizure notice went up on the AlphV TOR site, claiming that it had been taken down by the FBI and associated agencies. There was something a bit odd about it, though. See, the FBI did seize the AlphV Tor site back in December. The seizure notice this time was an exact copy, as if someone had just done a “save page as”, and posted the copy.

There is precedent for a ransomware group to close up shop and disappear after hitting a big score. The disruption AlphV enabled in the US health care system painted a big target on them, and it didn’t take a tactical genius to realize it might be good to lay low for a while. Pocketing the entire $22 million ransom probably didn’t hurt either. The particularly nasty part is that the affiliate that actually pulled off the attack still claims to have four terabytes of sensitive data, and no incentive to not release it online. It’s not even entirely clear that Change Healthcare actually received a decryption key for their data. You do not want to deal with these people.

Continue reading “This Week In Security: Blame The Feds, Emergency Patches, And The DMA” →

This Week In Security: Forksquatting, RustDesk, And M&Ms

March 1, 2024 by 14 Comments

Github is struggling to keep up with a malware campaign that’s a new twist on typosquatting. The play is straightforward: Clone popular repositories, add malware, and advertise the forks as the original. Some developers mistake the forks for the real projects, and unintentionally run the malware. The obvious naming choice is forksquatting, but the researchers at apiiro went with the safer name of “Repo Confusion”.

The campaign is automated, and GitHub is aware of it, with the vast majority of these malicious repositories getting removed right away. For whatever reason, the GitHub algorithm isn’t catching all of the new repos. The current campaign appears to publishing millions of forks, using code from over 100,000 legitimate projects. It’s beginning to seem that the squatting family of attacks are here to stay.

RustDesk and Odd Certificates

The RustDesk remote access software is interesting, as it’s open source, allows self-hosting, and written in Rust. I’ve had exploring RustDesk as a todo item for a long time, but a bit of concerning drama has just finished playing out. A user pointed out back in November that a test root certificate was installed as part of the RustDesk installation. That root cert is self-signed with SHA1. There is also concern that the RustDesk binaries are signed with a different certificate.

There have been new events since then. First, there was a Hacker News thread about the issue earlier this month. The next day, CVE-2024-25140 was registered with NIST, ranking an insane CVE 9.8 CVSS. Let’s cut through some FUD and talk about what’s really going on.

Continue reading “This Week In Security: Forksquatting, RustDesk, And M&Ms” →

This Week In Security: Filename Not Sanitized, MonikerLink, And Snap Attack!

February 16, 2024 by 7 Comments

Reading through a vulnerability report about ClamAV, I came across a phrase that filled me with dread: “The file name is not sanitized”. It’s a feature, VirusEvent, that can be enabled in the ClamnAV config. And that configuration includes a string formatting function, where the string includes %v and %s, which gets replaced with a detected virus name and the file name from the email. And now you see the problem, I hope: The filename is attacker supplied input.

Where this really gets out of hand is what ClamAV does with this string. execle("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", buffer_cmd, NULL, env). So let’s talk defensive program design for a minute. When it comes to running a secondary command, there are two general options, system() and the exec*() family of system calls. system() is very simple to use. It pauses execution of the main process and asks the operating system to run a string, just as if the user had typed that command into the shell. While this is very convenient to use, there is a security problem if any of that command string is user-supplied. All it takes is a semicolon or ampersand to break assumptions and inject a command.

To the rescue comes exec(). It’s a bit more complicated to use, requiring the programmer to manually call fork() and wait(). But it’s not running the command via the shell. exec() executes a program directly, totally eliminating the potential for command injection! Except… oops.

Yeah, exec() and related calls don’t offer any security protections when you use them to execute /bin/sh. I suspect the code was written this way to allow running a script without specifying /bin/sh in the config. The official fix was to disable the filename format character, and instead supply it as an environment variable. That certainly works, and that fix is available in 1.0.5, 1.2.2, and 1.3.0.

The real danger here is that we have another case where some hardware appliance manufacturer has used ClamAV for email filtering, and uses this configuration by default. That’s how we get orders from CISA to unplug your hardware, because it’s already compromised. Continue reading “This Week In Security: Filename Not Sanitized, MonikerLink, And Snap Attack!” →

This Week In Security: Broken Shims, LassPass, And Toothbrushes?

February 9, 2024 by 8 Comments

Linux has a shim problem. Which naturally leads to a reasonable question: What’s a shim, and why do we need it? The answer: Making Linux work wit Secure Boot, and an unintended quirk of the GPLv3.

Secure Boot is the verification scheme in modern machines that guarantees that only a trusted OS can boot. When Secure Boot was first introduced, many Linux fans suggested it was little more than an attempt to keep Linux distros off of consumer’s machines. That fear seems to have been unwarranted, as Microsoft has dutifully kept the Linux Shim signed, so we can all run Linux distros on our Secure Boot machines.

So the shim. It’s essentially a first-stage bootloader, that can boot a signed GRUB2 or other target. You might ask, why can’t we just ask Microsoft to sign GRUB2 directly? And that’s where the GPLv3 comes in. That license has an “anti-tivoization” section, which specifies “Installation Information” as part of what must be provided as part of GPLv3 compliance. And Microsoft’s legal team understands that requirement to apply to even this signing process. And it would totally defeat the point of Secure Boot to release the keys, so no GPLv3 code gets signed. Instead, we get the shim.

Now that we understand the shim, let’s cover how it’s broken. The most serious vulnerability is a buffer overflow in the HTTP file transfer code. The buffer is allocated based on the size in the HTTP header, but a malicious HTTP server can set that value incorrectly, and the shim code would happily write the real HTTP contents past the end of that buffer, leading to arbitrary code execution. You might ask, why in the world does the shim have HTTP code in it at all? The simple answer is to support UEFI HTTP Boot, a replacement for PXE boot.

The good news is that this vulnerability can only be triggered when using HTTP boot, and only by connecting to a malicious server or via a man-in-the-middle attack. With this in mind, it’s odd that this vulnerability is rated a 9.8. Specifically, it seems incorrect that this bug is rated low complexity, or a general network attack vector. In Red Hat’s own write-up of the vulnerability, they argue that the exploitation is high complexity, and is only possible from an adjacent network. There were a handful of lesser vulnerabilities found, and these were all fixed with shim 15.8. Continue reading “This Week In Security: Broken Shims, LassPass, And Toothbrushes?” →

This Week In Security: Glibc, Ivanti, Jenkins, And Runc

February 2, 2024 by 4 Comments

There’s a fun buffer overflow problem in the Glibc __vsyslog_internal() function. This one’s a real rollercoaster, because logging vulnerabilities are always scary, but at a first look, it seems nearly impossible to exploit. The vulnerability relies on a very long program name, which can overflow an internal buffer. No binaries are going to have a name longer than 1024 bytes, so there’s no problem, right?

Let’s talk about argv. That’s the list of arguments that gets passed into the main() function of every Linux binary when it launches. The first string in that list is the binary name — except that’s a convention, and not particularly enforced anywhere. What really happens is that the execve() system call sets that list of strings. The first argument can be anything, making this an attacker-controlled value. And it doesn’t matter what the program is trying to write to the log, because the vulnerability triggers simply by writing the process name to a buffer.

There is a one-liner to test for a vulnerable Glibc:

exec -a "`printf '%0128000x' 1`" /usr/bin/su < /dev/null

and the Qualys write-up indicates that it can be used for an escalation of privilege attack. The good news is this seems to be a local-only attack. And on top of that, a pair of other lesser severity issues were found and fixed in glibc while fixing this one.
Continue reading “This Week In Security: Glibc, Ivanti, Jenkins, And Runc” →