Connect with us

Security

Around 62% of all Internet sites will run an unsupported PHP version in 10 weeks

Published

on


According to statistics from W3Techs, roughly 78.9 percent of all Internet sites today run on PHP.

But on December 31, 2018, security support for PHP 5.6.x will officially cease, marking the end of all support for any version of the ancient PHP 5.x branch.

This means that starting with next year, around 62 percent of all Internet sites still running a PHP 5.x version will stop receiving security updates for their server and website’s underlying technology, exposing hundreds of millions of websites, if not more, to serious security risks.

If a hacker finds a vulnerability in PHP after the New Year, lots of sites and users would be at risk.

“This is a huge problem for the PHP ecosystem,” Scott Arciszewski, Chief Development Officer at Paragon Initiative Enterprise, told ZDNet in an interview. “While many feel that they can ‘get away with’ running PHP 5 in 2019, the simplest way to describe this choice is: Negligent.”

“To be totally fair: It’s likely that any major, mass-exploitable flaw in PHP 5.6 would also affect the newer versions of PHP,” Arciszewski added.

“PHP 7.2 will get a patch from the PHP team, for free, in a timely manner; PHP 5.6 will only get one if you’re paying for ongoing support from your OS vendor.

“If anyone finds themselves running PHP 5 after the end of the year, ask yourself: Do you feel lucky? Because I sure wouldn’t.”

php-eols.pngphp-eols.png

The PHP community has known of this deadline for quite a while. After PHP 5.6 became the most widely used PHP version back in the spring of 2017, PHP maintainers realized it would be a disaster if they stopped security updates right when PHP 5.6 became the most popular PHP version –so they extended the EOL date to the end of 2018.

Since then, there have been several developers and security researchers who warned about the “ticking PHP time bomb,” although not as many as infosec community would have wished.

There has not been a concerted effort to get people to move to the newer PHP 7.x, but some website content management systems (CMS) projects, one by one, have started modifying minimum requirements, and warning users to use more modern hosting environments.

Of the big three –WordPress, Joomla, and Drupal– only Drupal has made the official step to adjust its minimum requirements to PHP 7, but that move will come in March 2019. Ironically, the 7.0.x branch has reached EOL on December 3, 2017, which doesn’t actually solve anything, but it’s still a step forward.

Joomla’s minimum requirement remains PHP 5.3, while WordPress’ minimum requirement remains PHP 5.2.

“The biggest source of inertia in the PHP ecosystem regarding versions is undoubtedly WordPress, which still refuses to drop support for PHP 5.2 because there are more than zero systems in the universe that still run WordPress on an ancient, unsupported version of PHP,” Arciszewski said, describing the WordPress team’s infamous strongheadedness of keeping its minimum requirement at a PHP version that went EOL in 2011.

WordPress –which is used for more than a quarter of all sites on the Internet– would, without a doubt, shift a lot of people’s views on the necessity of using modern PHP versions if the project would move its minimum PHP requirement to the newer PHP 7.x branch.

“What PHP versions should be supported [by WordPress], however, has been a major debate for some time,” said Sean Murphy, Director of Threat Intelligence at Defiant, the company behind the WordFence security plugin for WordPress, in an email exchange with ZDNet.

“There is an ongoing initiative by the WordPress team to notify users when they are using a legacy version of PHP and give them the information and tools they need to request a newer version from their hosting provider,” he added. “Here are notes from this team’s recent meeting.”

Murphy believes that one of the biggest challenges of rolling out PHP version upgrades to a large number of sites is the flood of support requests that come as a result, a reason why many CMS projects and web hosting providers are reticent and unwilling to do so.

But Murphy also points out that “good hosting providers” will always deploy new users on new versions of PHP by default, instead of letting customers choose, and will update existing clients to new versions of PHP only when requested.

But unless customers are aware that their version of PHP has reached end-of-life, very few will ask to be moved to a newer version.

Here’s where WordPress’ notifications for users who are running sites on outdated PHP versions will come to help –making people either update their server or ask their hosting provider for a more modern hosting environment.

While some WordPress security experts are alarmed about the impending EOL for the PHP 5.6 branch and the entire PHP 5.x, indirectly, Murphy is not one of them.

“A PHP vulnerability […] would indeed be very bad, but there hasn’t been any that I know of in recent history,” he said.

“Based on past PHP vulnerabilities, the threat is mostly with PHP applications,” Murphy added, suggesting that attackers would likely continue to focus on PHP libraries and CMS systems.

But not all share Murphy’s opinion. For example, Arciszewski believes that PHP 5.6 and the older branches will be prodded for new vulnerabilities more than the usual. These branches are now EOL, are insanely popular, and are unsupported –the perfect conditions of plentiful targets with bad security that draw in attackers.

“Yes, that is absolutely a risk factor,” Arciszewski said. “We saw something similar happen after Windows XP support was dropped, and I suspect we’ll see the same happen to the PHP 5 branch.

“Maybe that will be the necessary catalyst for companies to take PHP 7 adoption seriously? I can only hope.”

And if server administrators and website owners need more convincing, we’ll end this article with the same ending that Martin Wheatley used for his “ticking PHP time bomb” piece from over the summer.

Yes it does cost time and money, but what’s worse, a small monthly support fee, or a headline “Site hacked, thousands of user details stolen” followed by a fine for up to 20 million euros or 4% of your turnover under GDPR… I know what I’d rather pay.

RELATED COVERAGE:

Source link



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Security

GigaOm Radar for Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR)

Published

on

Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) emerged as a product category in the mid-2010s. At that point, SOAR solutions were very much an automation and orchestration engine based on playbooks and integrations. Since then, the platforms have developed beyond the initial core SOAR capabilities to offer more holistic experiences to security analysts, with the aim of developing SOAR as the main workspace for practitioners.

Newer features offered by this holistic experience include case management, collaboration, simulations, threat enrichment, and visual correlations. Additionally, SOAR vendors have gradually implemented artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies to enable their platforms to learn from past events and fine-tune existing processes. This is where evolving threat categorization and autonomous improvement become differentiators in the space. While these two metrics are not critical for a SOAR platform, they may offer advantages in terms of reduced mean time to resolution (MTTR), resilience against employee turnover, and overall flexibility.

We’ve observed a lot of acquisition activity in the SOAR space. This was to be expected considering that, after 2015, a sizable number of pure-play SOAR vendors entered the market. Larger players with a wider security portfolio are acquiring these SOAR-specific vendors in order to enter the automation and orchestration market. We expect to see more SOAR acquisitions as the security tools converge, very likely into next-generation Security Information & Event Management products and services (SIEMs).

SIEM is a great candidate for a central management platform for security activities. It was designed to be a single source of truth, an aggregator of multiple security logs, but has been limited historically in its ability to carry out actions. In the past few years, however, SIEMs have either started developing their own automation and orchestration engines or integrated with third-party SOAR vendors. Through a number of acquisitions and developments, multiple players with wider security portfolios have begun to offer SOAR capabilities natively as part of other security solutions.

Going forward, we expect SOAR solutions to be further integrated into other products. This will include not only SIEM, but also solutions such as Extended Detection and Response (XDR) and IT automation. The number of pure-play SOAR vendors is unlikely to increase, although a handful may remain as fully agnostic solutions that enterprises can leverage in instances when their existing next-generation SIEM platforms do not meet all their use cases. However, for pure-play SOAR vendors to remain competitive, they will need to either expand into other security areas or consistently outperform their integrated counterparts.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

The post GigaOm Radar for Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Security

GigaOm Radar for Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS)

Published

on

Very few organizations see disaster recovery (DR) for their IT systems as a business differentiator, so they often prefer to outsource the process and consume it as a service (DRaaS) that’s billed monthly. There are many DRaaS providers with varying backgrounds, whose services are often shaped by that background. Products that started as customer-managed DR applications tend to have the most mature orchestration and automation, but vendors may face challenges transforming their application into a consumable service. Backup as a Service (BaaS) providers typically have great consumption models and off-site data protection, but they might be lacking in rich orchestration for failover. Other DRaaS providers come from IaaS backgrounds, with well-developed, on-demand resource deployment for recovery and often a broader platform with automation capabilities.

Before you invest in a DRaaS solution, you should attempt to be clear on what you see as its value. If your motivation is simply not to operate a recovery site, you probably want a service that uses technology similar to what you’re using at the protected site. If the objective is to spend less effort on DR protection, you will be less concerned about similarity and more with simplicity. And if you want to enable regular and granular testing of application recovery with on-demand resources, advanced failover automation and sandboxing will be vital features.

Be clear as well on the scale of disaster you are protecting against. On-premises recovery will protect against shared component failure in your data center. A DRaaS location in the same city will allow a lower RPO and provide lower latency after failover, but might be affected by the same disaster as your on-premises data center. A more distant DR location would be immune to your local disaster, but what about the rest of your business? It doesn’t help to have operational IT in another city if your only factory is under six feet of water.

DR services are designed to protect enterprise application architectures that are centered on VMs with persistent data and configuration. A lift-and-shift cloud adoption strategy leads to enterprise applications in the cloud, requiring cloud-to-cloud DR that is very similar to DRaaS from on-premises. Keep in mind, however, that cloud-native applications have different DR requirements.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

The post GigaOm Radar for Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS) appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Security

GigaOm Radar for DDoS Protection

Published

on

With ransomware getting all the news coverage when it comes to internet threats, it is easy to lose sight of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks even as these attacks become more frequent and aggressive. In fact, the two threats have recently been combined in a DDoS ransom attack, in which a company is hit with a DDoS and then a ransom demanded in exchange for not launching a larger DDoS. Clearly, a solid mechanism for thwarting such attacks is needed, and that is exactly what a good DDoS protection product will include. This will allow users, both staff and customers, to access their applications with no indication that a DDoS attack is underway. To achieve this, the DDoS protection product needs to know about your applications and, most importantly, have the capability to absorb the massive bandwidth generated by botnet attacks.

All the DDoS protection vendors we evaluated have a cloud-service element in their products. The scale-out nature of cloud platforms is the right response to the scale-out nature of DDoS attacks using botnets, thousands of compromised computers, and/or embedded devices. A DDoS protection network that is larger, faster, and more distributed will defend better against larger DDoS attacks.

Two public cloud platforms we review have their own DDoS protection, both providing it for applications running on their public cloud and offering only cloud-based protection. We also look at two content delivery networks (CDNs) that offer only cloud-based protection but also have a large network of locations for distributed protection. Many of the other vendors offer both on-premises and cloud-based services that are integrated to provide unified protection against the various attack vectors that target the network and application layers.

Some of the vendors have been protecting applications since the early days of the commercial internet. These vendors tend to have products with strong on-premises protection and integration with a web application firewall or application delivery capabilities. These companies may not have developed their cloud-based protections as fully as the born-in-the-cloud DDoS vendors.

In the end, you need a DDoS protection platform equal to the DDoS threat that faces your business, keeping in mind that such threats are on the rise.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

Continue Reading

Trending