Connect with us


Intel fixes severe NUC firmware, web console vulnerabilities



Intel hits 10th generation Core with 10nm Ice Lake launch
Chip giant finally brings 10nm fabrication process to desktop chips.

Intel has revealed a set of high-severity flaws impacting Intel NUC firmware and Intel RAID Web Console 3 (RWC3) for Windows.

On Tuesday, the tech giant released a set of security advisories for the issues, of which RWC3 patches are now available for download.

The bulk of the update, however, relates to Intel Next Unit of Computing (NUC) firmware, used in a variety of PCs with small form factors.

A total of 39 products based on NUC firmware including NUC Kit NUC8i3BEx, Compute Stick STK2MV64CC, NUC Kit NUC5CPYH, and Compute Card CD1IV128MK are impacted.

The first vulnerability of note, CVE-2019-11127, is a buffer overflow issue which can permit privilege escalation if local access is available. The second local vulnerability, CVE-2019-11128, has been caused by insufficient input validation which can not only result in privilege escalation but also denial of service or information disclosure.

Both bugs have been issued a CVSS score of 8.2 and are deemed critical.

See also: Intel finally issues Spoiler attack alert: Now non-Spectre exploit gets CVE but no patch

A further five vulnerabilities, all of which have been issued a critical severity score of 7.5, have also been resolved in the latest NUC firmware update.

A failure to properly validate sessions (CVE-2019-11123), two out of bound read/write issues (CVE-2019-11124, CVE-2019-11129), an insufficient input validation error (CVE-2019-11125), and pointer corruption (CVE-2019-11126) have all been resolved.

If left unpatched, these bugs can lead to privilege escalation, denial of service, and information disclosure. However, threat actors must already have access to an account with a level of user privilege in place to pull off an attack.

Intel has released firmware updates to resolve these security problems.

An advisory relating to Intel’s RWC3 has also been published that details a single security flaw, CVE-2019-11119, which impacts the web console system version 4.186 and earlier.  

TechRepublic: How to protect your network against security flaws in Microsoft’s NTLM protocol

A lack of session validation in the service API “may allow an unauthenticated user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via network access,” according to Intel, leading to the bug being awarded a critical severity rating of 8.9.

Intel thanked Alexander Ermolov, Ruslan Zakirov, Malyutin Maksim for finding and reporting the vulnerabilities.

In April, Intel responded to what researchers called the “Spoiler” attack (CVE-2019-0162), in which inherent weaknesses in Intel’s memory systems could be exploited to expose virtual address mapping to physical memory addresses.

CNET: Huawei ban: Full timeline on how and why its phones are under fire

While the company was keen to emphasize that private data could not be compromised through Spoiler, the issue does impact Intel CPUs back to the first generation of the hardware.

Intel gave the vulnerability a low-severity rating and recommended that “side-channel safe software development practices” be employed to mitigate the risk of exploit.

Previous and related coverage

Have a tip? Get in touch securely via WhatsApp | Signal at +447713 025 499, or over at Keybase: charlie0

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Phish Fight: Securing Enterprise Communications



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


When Is a DevSecOps Vendor Not a DevSecOps Vendor?



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


High Performance Application Security Testing



This free 1-hour webinar from GigaOm Research. It is hosted by an expert in Application and API testing, and GigaOm analyst, Jake Dolezal. His presentation will focus on the results of high performance testing we completed against two security mechanisms: ModSecurity on NGINX and NGINX App Protect. Additionally, we tested the AWS Web Application Firewall (WAF) as a fully managed security offering.

While performance is important, it is only one criterion for a Web Application Firewall selection. The results of the report are revealing about these platforms. The methodology will be shown with clarity and transparency on how you might replicate these tests to mimic your own workloads and requirements.

Register now to join GigaOm and sponsor NGINX for this free expert webinar.

Continue Reading