Connect with us

Security

Cisco discloses arbitrary execution in SD-WAN Solution and Webex

Published

on

Cisco has disclosed a critical vulnerability in its SD-WAN Solution that allows for arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Improper bounds checking by the vContainer allowed for potential authenticated attackers to send malicious files to an affected instance, which can cause a buffer overflow on the vContainer and create a situation for arbitrary code execution as root, the company said in its advisory.

Cisco vSmart Controllers running a SD-WAN Solution release prior to 18.4.0 were hit, the company said, with only vContainers being affected.

“The fixed software must be deployed by Cisco at the request of the customer. There is no fixed software for Cisco customers to download and deploy for this vulnerability,” the company said.

“Customers must engage their Cisco support contact to ensure the deployment of the latest software fix.”

The company said it is not aware of any exploitation, and the vulnerability was found during internal testing.

Also found via internal testing was another SD-WAN bug that allowed an authenticated, adjacent attacker to bypass authentication and access other vSmart containers.

“The vulnerability is due to an insecure default configuration of the affected system,” Cisco’s advisory said.

“An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by directly connecting to the exposed services. An exploit could allow the attacker to retrieve and modify critical system files.”

Internal testing by Cisco also found a user group configuration bug that would give privilege escalation to an attacker, allowing them to become root and control a box.

“The vulnerability is due to a failure to properly validate certain parameters included within the group configuration,” the advisory said.

“An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by writing a crafted file to the directory where the user group configuration is located in the underlying operating system. ”

In this case, the affected products include the: vBond Orchestrator; vEdge 100, 1000, 2000, 5000 series routers; vEdge Cloud Router Platform; vManage Network Management Software; and vSmart Controller.

The same class of hardware was also hit by an arbitrary file overwrite vulnerability due to improper validation of the save command used on the command line.

“A successful exploit could allow the attacker to overwrite arbitrary files on the underlying operating system of an affected device and escalate their privileges to the root user,” Cisco said.

Cisco said both issues were fixed in SD-WAN Solution Release 18.4.0.

On the Webex front, Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative discovered a vulnerability that allowed for arbitrary command execution within the Webex Teams client.

“This vulnerability is due to unsafe search paths used by the application URI that is defined in Windows operating systems,” Cisco said in its advisory.

“An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by convincing a targeted user to follow a malicious link. Successful exploitation could cause the application to load libraries from the directory targeted by the URI link.”

SEE: Cybersecurity in an IoT and mobile world (ZDNet special report) | Download the report as a PDF (TechRepublic)

The result of the vulnerability was an attacker could run commands with the same privileges as the targeted user.

The vulnerability impacts all versions of Cisco Webex Teams earlier than version 3.0.10260 released in November.

Putting a number of vulnerabilities for the Windows version of Webex into a single advisory, Cisco revealed an attacker could use malicious recording (ARF/WRF) files to execute code once a user opened them.

The networking giant said it has released fixed versions of its Webex Player and Webex Network Recording Player that were impacted.

The vulnerabilities in this instance were found by the Zero Day Initiative and researchers at Fortinet.

Among the dozen vulnerabilities classified as high status by Cisco were a pair of vulnerabilities in the web management interface of Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 routers that would allow a remote attacker to retrieve files off the device due to improper access controls, and for an attacker to gain administrative privileges to execute commands as root.

Over the course of 2018, Cisco removed seven hard-coded account credentials that gave root or default user privileges from its products.

Earlier this month, Cisco warned that its AsyncOS used in email security appliances were vulnerable to permanent denial of service as its software did not validate S/MIME-signed emails correctly.

Related Coverage

Cisco warns: Patch now or risk your security appliance choking on single rogue email

One bad email could crash your Cisco email security appliance and keep it down as it tries to process the same email over and again.

CES 2019: Cisco talks 6G

While everyone else spent CES 2019 talking about 5G, Cisco is already looking towards a 6G future.

Second time lucky: Cisco pushes fix for failed Webex vulnerability patch

New attack techniques have rendered the original patch useless.

Cisco updates SD-WAN portfolio with new security features

Among the key updates, Cisco said it’s integrating application-aware enterprise firewall, intrusion prevention, and URL filtering into Cisco SD-WAN devices.

These companies are hiring the most remote workers in 2019 (TechRepublic)

The tech industry is singled out by FlexJobs as being especially willing to offer opportunities to work outside of an office.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Security

CISO Podcast: Talking Anti-Phishing Solutions

Published

on

Simon Gibson earlier this year published the report, “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” which assessed more than a dozen security solutions focused on detecting and mitigating email-borne threats and vulnerabilities. As Gibson noted in his report, email remains a prime vector for attack, reflecting the strategic role it plays in corporate communications.

Earlier this week, Gibson’s report was a featured topic of discussions on David Spark’s popular CISO Security Vendor Relationship Podcast. In it, Spark interviewed a pair of chief information security officers—Mike Johnson, CISO for SalesForce, and James Dolph, CISO for Guidewire Software—to get their take on the role of anti-phishing solutions.

“I want to first give GigaOm some credit here for really pointing out the need to decide what to do with detections,” Johnson said when asked for his thoughts about selecting an anti-phishing tool. “I think a lot of companies charge into a solution for anti-phishing without thinking about what they are going to do when the thing triggers.”

As Johnson noted, the needs and vulnerabilities of a large organization aligned on Microsoft 365 are very different from those of a smaller outfit working with GSuite. A malicious Excel macro-laden file, for example, poses a credible threat to a Microsoft shop and therefore argues for a detonation solution to detect and neutralize malicious payloads before they can spread and morph. On the other hand, a smaller company is more exposed to business email compromise (BEC) attacks, since spending authority is often spread among many employees in these businesses.

Gibson’s radar report describes both in-line and out-of-band solutions, but Johnson said cloud-aligned infrastructures argue against traditional in-line schemes.

“If you put an in-line solution in front of [Microsoft] 365 or in front of GSuite, you are likely decreasing your reliability, because you’ve now introduced this single point of failure. Google and Microsoft have this massive amount of reliability that is built in,” Johnson said.

So how should IT decision makers go about selecting an anti-phishing solution? Dolph answered that question with a series of questions of his own:

“Does it nail the basics? Does it fit with the technologies we have in place? And then secondarily, is it reliable, is it tunable, is it manageable?” he asked. “Because it can add a lot overhead, especially if you have a small team if these tools are really disruptive to the email flow.”

Dolph concluded by noting that it’s important for solutions to provide insight that can help organizations target their protections, as well as support both training and awareness around threats. Finally, he urged organizations to consider how they can measure the effectiveness of solutions.

“I may look at other solutions in the future and how do I compare those solutions to the benchmark of what we have in place?”

Listen to the Podcast: CISO Podcast

Continue Reading

Security

Phish Fight: Securing Enterprise Communications

Published

on

Yes, much of the world may have moved on from email to social media and culturally dubious TikTok dances, yet traditional electronic mail remains a foundation of business communication. And sadly, it remains a prime vector for malware, data leakage, and phishing attacks that can undermine enterprise protections. It doesn’t have to be that way.

In a just released report titled “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” GigaOm Analyst Simon Gibson surveyed more than a dozen enterprise-focused email security solutions. He found a range of approaches to securing communications that often can be fitted together to provide critical, defense-in-depth protection against even determined attackers.

Figure 1. GigaOm Radar for Email Phishing Prevention and Detection

“When evaluating these vendors and their solutions, it is important to consider your own business and workflow,” Gibson writes in the report, stressing the need to deploy solutions that best address your organization’s business workflow and email traffic. “For some it may be preferable to settle on one comprehensive solution, while for others building a best-of-breed architecture from multiple vendors may be preferable.”

In a field of competent solutions, Gibson found that Forcepoint, purchased recently by Raytheon, stood apart thanks to the layered protections provided by its Advanced Classification Engine. Area 1 and Zimperium, meanwhile, are both leaders that exhibit significant momentum, with Area 1 boosted by its recent solution partnership with Virtru, and Zimperium excelling in its deep commitment to mobile message security.

A mobile focus is timely, Gibson says in a video interview for GigaOm. He says companies are “tuning the spigot on” and enabling unprecedented access and reliance on mobile devices, which is creating an urgent need to get ahead of threats.

Gibson’s conclusion in the report? He singles out three things: Defense in depth, awareness of existing patterns and infrastructure, and a healthy respect for the “human factor” that can make security so hard to lock down.

Continue Reading

Security

When Is a DevSecOps Vendor Not a DevSecOps Vendor?

Published

on

DevOps’ general aim is to enable a more efficient process for producing software and technology solutions and bringing stakeholders together to speed up delivery. But we know from experience that this inherently creative, outcome-driven approach often forgets about one thing until too late in the process—security. Too often, security is brought into the timeline just before deployment, risking last minute headaches and major delays. The security team is pushed into being the Greek chorus of the process, “ruining everyone’s fun” by demanding changes and slowing things down.

But as we know, in the complex, multi-cloud and containerized environment we find ourselves in, security is becoming more important and challenging than ever. And the costs of security failure are not only measured in slower deployment, but in compliance breaches and reputational damage.

The term “DevSecOps” has been coined to characterize how security needs to be at the heart of the DevOps process. This is in part principle and part tools. As a principle, DevSecOps fits with the concept of “shifting left,” that is, ensuring that security is treated as early as possible in the development process. So far, so simple.

From a tooling perspective, however, things get more complicated, not least because the market has seen a number of platforms marketing themselves as DevSecOps. As we have been writing our Key Criteria report on the subject, we have learned that not all DevSecOps vendors are necessarily DevSecOps vendors. Specifically, we have learned to distinguish capabilities that directly enable the goals of DevSecOps from a process perspective, from those designed to support DevSecOps practices. We could define them as: “Those that do, and those that help.”

This is how to tell the two types of vendor apart and how to use them.

Vendors Enabling DevSecOps: “Tools That Do”

A number of tools work to facilitate the DevSecOps process -– let’s bite the bullet and call them DevSecOps tools. They help teams set out each stage of software development, bringing siloed teams together behind a unified vision that allows fast, high-quality development, with security considerations at its core. DevSecOps tools work across the development process, for example:

  • Create: Help to set and implement policy
  • Develop: Apply guidance to the process and aid its implementation
  • Test: Facilitate and guide security testing procedures
  • Deploy: Provide reports to assure confidence to deploy the application

The key element that sets these tool sets apart is the ability to automate and reduce friction within the development process. They will prompt action, stop a team from moving from one stage to another if the process has not adequately addressed security concerns, and guide the roadmap for the development from start to finish.

Supporting DevSecOps: “Tools That Help”

In this category we place those tools which aid the execution, and monitoring, of good DevSecOps principles. Security scanning and application/infrastructure hardening tools are a key element of these processes: Software composition analysis (SCA) forms a part of the development stage, static/dynamic application security testing (SAST/DAST) is integral to the test stage and runtime app protection (RASP) is a key to the Deploy stage.

Tools like this are a vital part of the security layer of security tooling, especially just before deployment – and they often come with APIs so they can be plugged into the CI/CD process. However, while these capabilities are very important to DevSecOps, they can be seen in more of a supporting role, rather than being DevSecOps tools per se.

DevSecOps-washing is not a good idea for the enterprise

While one might argue that security should never have been shifted right, DevSecOps exists to ensure that security best practices take place across the development lifecycle. A corollary exists to the idea of “tools that help,” namely that organizations implementing these tools are not “doing DevSecOps,” any more than vendors providing these tools are DevSecOps vendors.

The only way to “do” DevSecOps is to fully embrace security at a process management and governance level: This means assessing risk, defining policy, setting review gates, and disallowing progress for insecure deliverables. Organizations that embrace DevSecOps can get help from what we are calling DevSecOps tools, as well as from scanning and hardening tools that help support its goals.

At the end of the day, all security and governance boils down to risk: If you buy a scanning tool so you can check a box that says “DevSecOps,” you are potentially adding to your risk posture, rather than mitigating it. So, get your DevSecOps strategy fixed first, then consider how you can add automation, visibility, and control using “tools that do,” as well as benefit from “tools that help.”

Continue Reading

Trending