New UEFI firmware flaws impact over 70 Lenovo laptop models

The UEFI firmware used in several laptops made by Lenovo is vulnerable to three buffer overflow vulnerabilities that could enable attackers to hijack the startup routine of Windows installations.

Lenovo has issued a security advisory disclosing three medium severity vulnerabilities tracked as CVE-2022-1890, CVE-2022-1891, and CVE-2022-1892.

The first is an issue in the ReadyBootDxe driver used in some Lenovo notebook products, while the last two are buffer overflow bugs in the SystemLoadDefaultDxe driver.

This second driver is used in the Yoga, IdeaPad, Flex, ThinkBook, V14, V15, V130, Slim, S145, S540, and S940 Lenovo lines, affecting over 70 individual models.

For more information on the impacted models, check out Lenovo’s product impact table at the bottom of the security advisory.

According to ESET, whose analysts discovered the three bugs and reported them to Lenovo, an attacker could leverage them to hijack the OS execution flow and disable security features.

“These vulnerabilities were caused by insufficient validation of DataSize parameter passed to the UEFI Runtime Services function GetVariable,” explains ESET Research in a tweet.

“An attacker could create a specially crafted NVRAM variable, causing buffer overflow of the Data buffer in the second GetVariable call.”

Variable to trigger exploitation of CVE-2022-1892
Variable to trigger exploitation of CVE-2022-1892 (ESET Research)

To help the cybersecurity community identify and fix similar issues, ESET submitted code improvements to Binarly’s UEFI firmware analyzer ‘efiXplorer,’ which is freely available on GitHub.

Hijacking the OS

UEFI firmware attacks are extremely dangerous because they enable threat actors to run malware early in an operating system’s boot process, even before Windows built-in security protections are activated.

This early level of access allows the malware to bypass or disable OS-level security protections, evade detection, and persist even after a disk is formatted.

While low-skilled remote actors can’t easily exploit these flaws, more capable hackers with access (malware or hands-on) to a targeted machine could leverage the vulnerabilities for silent yet ultra-powerful compromises.

To address the security risk, users of the affected devices are recommended to download the latest available driver version for their products which can be found on Lenovo’s official software download portal.

If you have trouble determining what model you’re using, Lenovo offers an automatic online detector that you can use instead.

Source :
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-uefi-firmware-flaws-impact-over-70-lenovo-laptop-models/https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-uefi-firmware-flaws-impact-over-70-lenovo-laptop-models/

Windows 8.1 now shows full-screen ‘End of Support’ warnings

Windows 8.1 is now displaying full-screen alerts when logging into the operating system, warning that the OS is reaching the end of support in January 2023 and will no longer receive security updates.

The notification was introduced yesterday as part of the Windows 8.1 KB5015874 cumulative update, which includes a new EOSnotify.exe program to display a warning that the operating system will soon be unsupported.

“January 10, 2023 is the last day Microsoft will offer security updates and technical support for PCs that run Windows 8.1. We are reaching out now to thank you for your loyalty and help you prepare for what’s next,” reads the Windows 8.1 notification below.

Windows 7 End of Support Ad
Windows 7 End of Support Ad
Source: XenoPather

When displaying the notification, users can click on the ‘Remind me later’ option, which will cause the notification to be shown again in 35 days. Users can also click on the ‘Remind me after the end of support date’ option to only show the notification after Windows 8.1 reaches the end of support.

Clicking on the ‘Learn More’ link will bring people to a Microsoft.com web page explaining that Windows 8.1 will soon reach the end of support.

Microsoft states that the notification will not appear on managed Pro and Enterprise devices, as well as Windows Embedded 8.1 Industry Enterprise and Windows Embedded 8.1 Industry Pro devices.

About EOSnotify.exe

Like the Windows 7 full-screen notifications warning users to upgrade to Windows 10, the new Windows 8.1 notifications use Microsoft’s EOSnotify program.

EOSNotify.exe is located under the C:\Windows\System32 folder and is launched via two scheduled tasks named EOSNotify and EOSNotify2.

The EOSNotify task is launched any time a user logs into Windows, and the EOSNotify2 is run once a day.

When the EOSNotify.exe program runs, it will check the LastRunTimestamp value under the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\EOSNotify key, and if it has already run that day, it will not show the alert.

When a user clicks on the ‘Remind Me Later link in the notification, EOSNotify.exe will create the ‘RemindMeLater‘ value and set it to 1 to indicate that Windows should not show the alert again for another 35 days.

If a user clicks on the ‘Remind me after the end of support date’ link, EOSNotify will create the ‘RemindMeAfterEndOfSupport‘ value and set it to 1, causing the notification only to be shown again after Windows 8.1 reaches end of support on January 10th, 2023.

Finally, it is possible to prevent the notification from displaying at all by configuring the ‘DiscontinueEOS‘ value, as shown below.

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\EOSNotify]
“DiscontinueEOS”=dword:00000001
 

While these alerts may be intrusive, users should upgrade to a newer version of Windows before it reaches the end of support.

Not doing so will only cause the operating system to become more vulnerable to exploits, malware, and other bugs that may appear over time.

Source :
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/windows-81-now-shows-full-screen-end-of-support-warnings/

PayPal phishing kit added to hacked WordPress sites for full ID theft

A newly discovered phishing kit targeting PayPal users is trying to steal a large set of personal information from victims that includes government identification documents and photos.

Over 400 million individuals and companies are using PayPal as an online payment solution.

The kit is hosted on legitimate WordPress websites that have been hacked, which allows it to evade detection to a certain degree.

Breaching websites with weak login

Researchers at internet technology company Akamai found the phishing kit after the threat actor planted it on their WordPress honeypot.

The threat actor targets poorly secured websites and brute-forces their log in using a list of common credential pairs found online. They use this access to install a file management plugin that allows uploading the phishing kit to the breached site.

Installing the malicious plugin
Installing the file management plugin (Akamai)

Akamai discovered that one method the phishing kit uses to avoid detection is to cross-reference IP addresses to domains belonging to a specific set of companies, including some orgs in the cybersecurity industry.

Performing a site check
Performing a site check (Akamai)

Legit-looking page

The researchers noticed that the author of the phishing kit made an effort to make the fraudulent page look professional and mimic the original PayPal site as much as possible.

One aspect they observed was that the author uses htaccess to rewrite the URL so that it does not end with the extension of the PHP file. This adds to a cleaner, more polished appearance that lends legitimacy.

Rewriting URL to remove php ending
Rewriting URL to remove php ending (Akamai)

Also, all graphical interface elements in the forms are styled after PayPal’s theme, so the phishing pages have a seemingly authentic appearance.

Data stealing process

Stealing a victim’s personal data starts with presenting them a CAPTCHA challenge, a step that creates a false sense of legitimacy.

Bogus CAPTCHA step on the phishing site
Bogus CAPTCHA step on the phishing site (Akamai)

After this stage, the victim is asked to log into their PayPal account using their email address and password, which are automatically delivered to the threat actor.

This is not all, though. Under the pretense of “unusual activity” associated with the victim’s account, the threat actor asks for more verification information.

Warning about unusual account activity
Warning about unusual account activity (Akamai)

In a subsequent page, the victim is asked to provide a host of personal and financial details that include payment card data along with the card verification code, physical address, social security number, mother’s maiden name.

It appears that the phishing kit was built to squeeze all the personal information from the victim. Apart from the card data typically collected in phishing scams, this one also demands the social security number, mother’s maiden name, and even the card’s PIN number for transactions at ATM machines.

More info collected
More info collected (Akamai)

Collecting this much information is not typical to phishing kits. However, this one goes even further and asks victims to link their email account to PayPal. This would give the attacker a token that could be used to access the contents of the provided email address.  

Phishing email accounts
Phishing email accounts (Akamai)

Despite having collected a massive amount of personal information, the threat actor is not finished. In the next step, they ask the victim to upload their official identification documents to confirm their identity.

The accepted documents are passport, national ID, or a driver’s license and the upload procedure comes with specific instructions, just as PayPal or a legitimate service would ask from their users.

Instructions on how to upload documents
Instructions on how to upload documents (Akamai)

Cybercriminals could use all this information for a variety of illegal activities ranging from anything related to identity theft to launder money (e.g. creating cryptocurrency trading accounts, registering companies) and maintaining anonymity when purchasing services to taking over banking accounts or cloning payment cards.

Uploading government documents and taking a selfie to verify them is a bigger ballgame for a victim than just losing credit card information — it could be used to create cryptocurrency trading accounts under the victim’s name. These could then be used to launder money, evade taxes, or provide anonymity for other cybercrimes. – Akamai

Although the phishing kit appears sophisticated, the researchers discovered that its file upload feature comes with a vulnerability that could be exploited to upload a web shell and take control of the compromised website.

Provided the huge amount of information requested, the scam may appear obvious to some users. However, Akamai researchers believe that this specific social engineering element is what makes the kit successful.

They explain that identity verification is normal these days and this can be done in multiple ways. “People judge brands and companies on their security measures these days,” the researchers say.

The use of the captcha challenge signals from the beginning that additional verification may be expected. By using the same methods as legitimate services, the threat actor solidifies the victim’s trust.

Users are advised to check the domain name of a page asking for sensitive information. They can also go to the official page of the service, by typing it manually in the browser, to check if identity verification is in order.

Source :
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/paypal-phishing-kit-added-to-hacked-wordpress-sites-for-full-id-theft/

PSA: Sudden Increase In Attacks On Modern WPBakery Page Builder Addons Vulnerability

The Wordfence Threat Intelligence team has been monitoring a sudden increase in attack attempts targeting Kaswara Modern WPBakery Page Builder Addons. This ongoing campaign is attempting to take advantage of an arbitrary file upload vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2021-24284, which has been previously disclosed and has not been patched on the now closed plugin. As the plugin was closed without a patch, all versions of the plugin are impacted by this vulnerability. The vulnerability can be used to upload malicious PHP files to an affected website, leading to code execution and complete site takeover. Once they’ve established a foothold, attackers can also inject malicious JavaScript into files on the site, among other malicious actions.

All Wordfence customers have been protected from this attack campaign by the Wordfence Firewall since May 21, 2021, with Wordfence Premium, Care, and Response customers having received the firewall rule 30 days earlier on April 21, 2021. Even though Wordfence provides protection against this vulnerability, we strongly recommend completely removing Kaswara Modern WPBakery Page Builder Addons as soon as possible and finding an alternative as it is unlikely the plugin will ever receive a patch for this critical vulnerability. We are currently protecting over 1,000 websites that still have the plugin installed, and we estimate that between 4,000 and 8,000 websites in total still have the plugin installed.

We have blocked an average of 443,868 attack attempts per day against the network of sites that we protect during the course of this campaign. Please be aware that while 1,599,852 unique sites were targeted, a majority of those sites were not running the vulnerable plugin.

total volume of attacks

Description: Arbitrary File Upload/Deletion and Other
Affected Plugin: Kaswara Modern WPBakery Page Builder Addons
Plugin Slug: kaswara
Affected Versions: <= 3.0.1
CVE ID:CVE-2021-24284
CVSS Score: 10.0 (Critical)
CVSS Vector:CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Fully Patched Version: NO AVAILABLE PATCH.

Indicators of Attack

The majority of the attacks we have seen are sending a POST request to /wp-admin/admin-ajax.php using the uploadFontIcon AJAX action found in the plugin to upload a file to the impacted website. Your logs may show the following query string on these events:

/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=uploadFontIcon HTTP/1.1

We have observed 10,215 attacking IP addresses, with the vast majority of exploit attempts coming from these top ten IPs:

  • 217.160.48.108 with 1,591,765 exploit attempts blocked
  • 5.9.9.29 with 898,248 exploit attempts blocked
  • 2.58.149.35 with 390,815 exploit attempts blocked
  • 20.94.76.10 with 276,006 exploit attempts blocked
  • 20.206.76.37 with 212,766 exploit attempts blocked
  • 20.219.35.125 with 187,470 exploit attempts blocked
  • 20.223.152.221 with 102,658 exploit attempts blocked
  • 5.39.15.163 with 62,376 exploit attempts blocked
  • 194.87.84.195 with 32,890 exploit attempts blocked
  • 194.87.84.193 with 31,329 exploit attempts blocked
total exploit attempts

Indicators of Compromise

Based on our analysis of the attack data, a majority of attackers are attempting to upload a zip file named a57bze8931.zip. When attackers are successful at uploading the zip file, a single file named a57bze8931.php will be extracted into the /wp-content/uploads/kaswara/icons/ directory. The malicious file has an MD5 hash of d03c3095e33c7fe75acb8cddca230650. This file is an uploader under the control of the attacker. With this file, a malicious actor has the ability to continue uploading files to the compromised website.

The indicators observed in these attacks also include signs of the NDSW trojan, which injects code into otherwise legitimate JavaScript files and redirects site visitors to malicious websites. The presence of  this string in your JavaScript files is a strong indication that your site has been infected with NDSW:

;if(ndsw==

Some additional filenames that attackers are attempting to upload includes:

  • [xxx]_young.zip where [xxx] varies and typically consists of 3 characters like ‘svv_young’
  • inject.zip
  • king_zip.zip
  • null.zip
  • plugin.zip

What Should I Do If I Use This Plugin?

All Wordfence users, including FreePremiumCare, and Response, are protected from exploits targeting this vulnerability. However, at this time the plugin has been closed, and the developer has not been responsive regarding a patch. The best option is to fully remove the Kaswara Modern WPBakery Page Builder Addons plugin from your WordPress website.

If you know a friend or colleague who is using this plugin on their site, we highly recommend forwarding this advisory to them to help keep their sites protected, as this is a serious vulnerability that can lead to complete site takeover.

If you believe your site has been compromised as a result of this vulnerability or any other vulnerability, we offer Incident Response services via Wordfence Care. If you need your site cleaned immediately, Wordfence Response offers the same service with 24/7/365 availability and a 1-hour response time. Both of these products include hands-on support in case you need further assistance.

Source :
https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2022/07/attacks-on-modern-wpbakery-page-builder-addons-vulnerability/

Uncovering a macOS App Sandbox escape vulnerability: A deep dive into CVE-2022-26706

Microsoft uncovered a vulnerability in macOS that could allow specially crafted codes to escape the App Sandbox and run unrestricted on the system. We shared these findings with Apple through Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) via Microsoft Security Vulnerability Research (MSVR) in October 2021. A fix for this vulnerability, now identified as CVE-2022-26706, was included in the security updates released by Apple on May 16, 2022. Microsoft shares the vulnerability disclosure credit with another researcher, Arsenii Kostromin (0x3c3e), who discovered a similar technique independently.

We encourage macOS users to install these security updates as soon as possible. We also want to thank the Apple product security team for their responsiveness in fixing this issue.

The App Sandbox is Apple’s access control technology that application developers must adopt to distribute their apps through the Mac App Store. Essentially, an app’s processes are enforced with customizable rules, such as the ability to read or write specific files. The App Sandbox also restricts the processes’ access to system resources and user data to minimize the impact or damage if the app becomes compromised. However, we found that specially crafted codes could bypass these rules. An attacker could take advantage of this sandbox escape vulnerability to gain elevated privileges on the affected device or execute malicious commands like installing additional payloads.

We found the vulnerability while researching potential ways to run and detect malicious macros in Microsoft Office on macOS. For backward compatibility, Microsoft Word can read or write files with an “~$” prefix. Our findings revealed that it was possible to escape the sandbox by leveraging macOS’s Launch Services to run an open –stdin command on a specially crafted Python file with the said prefix.

Our research shows that even the built-in, baseline security features in macOS could still be bypassed, potentially compromising system and user data. Therefore, collaboration between vulnerability researchers, software vendors, and the larger security community remains crucial to helping secure the overall user experience. This includes responsibly disclosing vulnerabilities to vendors.

In addition, insights from this case study not only enhance our protection technologies, such as Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, but they also help strengthen the security strategies of software vendors and the computing landscape at large. This blog post thus provides details of our research and overviews of similar sandbox escape vulnerabilities reported by other security researchers that helped enrich our analysis.

How macOS App Sandbox works

In a nutshell, macOS apps can specify sandbox rules for the operating system to enforce on themselves. The App Sandbox restricts system calls to an allowed subset, and the said system calls can be allowed or disallowed based on files, objects, and arguments. Simply put, the sandbox rules are a defense-in-depth mechanism that dictates the kind of operations an application can or can’t do, regardless of the type of user running it. Examples of such operations include:

  • the kind of files an application can or can’t read or write;
  • whether the application can access specific resources such as the camera or the microphone, and;
  • whether the application is allowed to perform inbound or outbound network connections.
Diagram comparing how user data and system resources access an app without and with App Sandbox.Without App Sandbox, all user data and system resources will have unrestricted access to the app.With App Sandbox, only the data and resources confined within the said sandbox will have unrestricted access to the app. All other user data and resources won't have access.
Figure 1. Illustration of a sandboxed app, from the App Sandbox documentation (photo credit: Apple)

Therefore, the App Sandbox is a useful tool for all macOS developers in providing baseline security for their applications, especially for those that have large attack surfaces and run user-provided code. One example of these applications is Microsoft Office.

Sandboxing Microsoft Office in macOS

Attackers have targeted Microsoft Office in their attempts to gain a foothold on devices and networks. One of their techniques is abusing Office macros, which they use in social engineering attacks to trick users into downloading malware and other payloads.

On Windows systems, Microsoft Defender Application Guard for Office helps secure Microsoft Office against such macro abuse by isolating the host environment using Hyper-V. With this feature enabled, an attacker must first be equipped with a Hyper-V guest-to-host vulnerability to affect the host system—a very high bar compared to simply running a macro. Without a similar isolation technology and default setting on macOS, Office must rely on the operating system’s existing mitigation strategies. Currently, the most promising technology is the macOS App Sandbox.

Viewing the Microsoft sandbox rules is quite straightforward with the codesign utility. Figure 2 below shows the truncated sandbox rules for Microsoft Word:

Partial screenshot of a command line interface showing different keys and values related to the App Sandbox rules for Microsoft Word in macOS.
Figure 2. Viewing the Microsoft Word sandbox rules with the codesign utility

One of the rules dictates the kind of files the application is allowed to read or write. As seen in the screenshot of the syntax below, Word is allowed to read or write files with filenames that start with the “~$” prefix. The reason for this rule is rooted in the way Office works internally and remains intact for backward compatibility.

Partial screenshot of a command line interface showing the read/write App Sandbox rule for Microsoft Word in macOS.
Figure 3. File read and write sandbox rule for Microsoft Word

Despite the security restrictions imposed by the App Sandbox’s rules on applications, it’s possible for attackers to bypass the said rules and let malicious codes “escape” the sandbox and execute arbitrary commands on an affected device. These codes could be hidden in a specially crafted Word macro, which, as mentioned earlier, is one of the attackers’ preferred entry points.

Previously reported Office-specific sandbox escape vulnerability

For example, in 2018, MDSec reported a vulnerability in Microsoft Office on macOS that could allow an attacker to bypass the App Sandbox. As explained in their blog post, MDSec’s proof-of-concept (POC) exploit took advantage of the fact that Word could drop files with arbitrary contents to arbitrary directories (even after passing traditional permission checks), as long as these files’ filenames began with a “~$” prefix. This bypass was relatively straightforward: have a specially crafted macro drop a .plist file in the user’s LaunchAgents directory.

The LaunchAgents directory is a well-known persistence mechanism in macOS. PLIST files that adhere to a specific structure describe (that is, contain the metadata of) macOS launch agents initiated by the launchd process when a user signs in. Since these launch agents will be the children of launchd, they won’t inherit the sandbox rules enforced onto Word, and therefore will be out of the Office sandbox.

Shortly after the above vulnerability was reported, Microsoft deployed a fix that denied file writes to the LaunchAgents directory and other folders with similar implications. The said disclosure also prompted us to look into different possible sandbox escapes in Microsoft Word and other applications.

Exploring Launch Services as means of escaping the sandbox

In 2020, several blog posts described a generic sandbox escape vulnerability in macOS’s /usr/bin/open utility, a command commonly used to launch files, folders, and applications just as if a user double-clicked them. While open is a handy command, it doesn’t create child processes on its own. Instead, it performs an inter-process communication (IPC) with the macOS Launch Services, whose logic is implemented in the context of the launchd process. Launch Services then performs the heavy lifting by resolving the handler and launching the right app. Since launchd creates the process, it’s not restricted by the caller’s sandbox, similar to how MDSec’s POC exploit worked in 2018.

However, using open for sandbox escape purposes isn’t trivial because the destination app must be registered within Launch Services. This means that, for example, one couldn’t run files like osascript outside the sandbox using open. Our internal offensive security team therefore decided to reassess the open utility for sandbox escape purposes and use it in a larger end-to-end attack simulation.

Our obvious first attempt in creating a POC exploit was to create a macro that launches a shell script with the Terminal app. Surprisingly, the POC didn’t work because files dropped from within the sandboxed Word app were automatically given the extended attribute com.apple.quarantine (the same one used by Safari to keep track of internet-downloaded files, as well as by Gatekeeper to block malicious files from executing), and Terminal simply refused to run files with that attribute. We also tried using Python scripts, but the Python app had similar issues running files having the said attribute.

Our second attempt was to use application extensibility features. For example, Terminal would run the default macOS shell (zsh), which would then run arbitrary commands from files like ~/.zshenv before running its own command line. This meant that dropping a .zshenv file in the user’s home directory and launching the Terminal app would cause the sandbox escape. However, due to Word’s sandbox rules, dropping a .zshenv file wasn’t straightforward, as the rules only allowed an application to write to files that begin with the “~$” prefix.

However, there is an interesting way of writing such a file indirectly. macOS was shipped with an application called Archive Utility responsible of extracting archive files (such as ZIP files). Such archives were extracted without any user interaction, and the files inside an archive were extracted in the same directory as the archive itself. Therefore, our second POC worked as follows:

  1. Prepare the payload by creating a .zshenv file with arbitrary commands and placing it in a ZIPfile. Encode the ZIPfile contents in a Word macro and drop those contents into a file “~$exploit.zip” in the user’s home directory.
  2. Launch Archive Utility with the open command on the “~$exploit.zip” file. Archive Utility ran outside the sandbox (since it’s the child process of /usr/bin/open) and was therefore permitted to create files with arbitrary names. By default, Archive Utility extracted the files next to the archive itself—in our case, the user’s home directory. Therefore, this step successfully created a .zshenv file with arbitrary contents in the user’s home directory.
  3. Launch the Terminal app with the open command. Since Terminal hosted zsh and zsh ran commands from the .zshenv file, the said file could escape the Word sandbox successfully.
Screenshot of a command line interface showing proof-of-concept exploit code.
Figure 4. Preparing a Word macro with our sandbox escape for an internal Red Team operation

Perception Point’s CVE-2021-30864

In October 2021, Perception Point published a blog post that discussed a similar finding (and more elegant, in our opinion). In the said post, Perception Point released details about their sandbox escape (now identified as CVE-2021-30864), which used the following facts:

  1. Every sandboxed process had its own container directory that’s used as a “scratch space.” The sandboxed process could write arbitrary files, including arbitrary filenames, to that directory unrestricted.
  2. The open command had an interesting –env option that could set or override arbitrary environment variables for the launched app.

Therefore, Perception Point’s POC exploit was cleverly simple:

  1. Drop a .zshenv file in the container directory. This was allowed because sandbox rules weren’t enforced on that directory.
  2. Launch Terminal with the open command but use the –env option to override the HOME environment variable to point to the container directory. This made zsh consider the user’s home directory to be the container directory, and run commands from the planted .zshenv file.

Apple has since patched the vulnerability Perception Point reported in the latest version of macOS, Monterey. While we could still create the “~$exploit.zip” file in the user’s home directory, using open to launch the Archive Utility on the ZIP file now resulted in it being extracted to the Downloads folder. While this is an interesting behavior, we could no longer use it for sandbox escape purposes.

Final exploit attempt: Revisiting the ‘open’ command

After discovering that Apple has fixed both variants that abuse .zshenv, , we decided to examine all the command line options of the open command. Soon after, we came across the following:

Screenshot of a command line interface with the following text:--stdin PATH
Launches the application with stdin connected to PATH.
Figure 5. The –stdin option in the open utility as presented by its manual entry

As mentioned earlier, we couldn’t run Python with a dropped .py file since Python refuses to run files with the “com.apple.quarantine” extended attribute. We also considered abusing the PYTHONSTARTUP environment variable, but Apple’s fix to CVE-2021-30864 apparently prevented that option, too. However, stdin bypassed the “com.apple.quarantine” extended attribute restriction, as there was no way for Python to know that the contents from its standard input originated from a quarantined file.

Our POC exploit thus became simply as follows:

  1. Drop a “~$exploit.py” file with arbitrary Python commands.
  2. Run open –stdin=’~$exploit.py’ -a Python, which runs the Python app with our dropped file serving as its standard input. Python happily runs our code, and since it’s a child process of launchd, it isn’t bound to Word’s sandbox rules.
Screenshot of a proof-of-concept exploit code.
Figure 6. Sample minimal POC exploit code

We also came up with a version that’s short enough to be a Twitter post:

Screenshot of a proof-of-concept exploit code.
Figure 7. “Tweetable” POC exploit

Detecting App Sandbox escapes with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Since our initial discovery of leveraging Launch Services in macOS for generic sandbox escapes, we have been using our POC exploits in Red Team operations to emulate end-to-end attacks against Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, improve its capabilities, and challenge our detections. Shortly after our Red Team used our first POC exploit, our Blue Team members used it to train artificial intelligence (AI) models to detect our exploit not only in Microsoft Office but also on any app used for a similar Launch Services-based sandbox escape.

After we learned of Perception Point’s technique and created our own new exploit technique (the Python POC), our Red Team saw another opportunity to fully test our own detection durability. Indeed, the same set of detection rules that handled our first sandbox escape vulnerability still turned out to be durable—even before the vulnerability related to our second POC exploit was patched.

Partial screenshot of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint detecting an Office sandbox escape vulnerability.The left panel shows the Alert Story with timestamps. The right panel shows the Alert details, including category, MITRE ATT&CK techniques, detection source, service source, detection status, and other information.
Figure 8. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint detecting Office sandbox escape

For Defender for Endpoint customers, such detection durability feeds into the product’s threat and vulnerability management capabilities, which allows them to quickly discover, prioritize, and remediate misconfigurations and vulnerabilities—including those affecting non-Windows devices—through a unified security console.

Learn how Microsoft Defender for Endpoint delivers a complete endpoint security solution across all platforms.

Jonathan Bar Or
Microsoft 365 Defender Research Team


Source :
https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/07/13/uncovering-a-macos-app-sandbox-escape-vulnerability-a-deep-dive-into-cve-2022-26706/

A Simple Formula for Getting Your IT Security Budget Approved

Although there is a greater awareness of cybersecurity threats than ever before, it is becoming increasingly difficult for IT departments to get their security budgets approved. Security budgets seem to shrink each year and IT pros are constantly being asked to do more with less. Even so, the situation may not be hopeless. There are some things that IT pros can do to improve the chances of getting their security budgets approved.

Presenting the Problem in a Compelling Way

If you want to get your proposed security budget approved, you will need to present security problems in a compelling way. While those who are in charge of the organization’s finances are likely aware of the need for good security, they have probably also seen enough examples of “a security solution in search of a problem” to make them skeptical of security spending requests. If you want to persuade those who control the money, then you will need to convince them of three things:

  1. You are trying to protect against a real issue that presents a credible threat to the organization’s wellbeing.
  2. Your proposed solution will be effective and that it isn’t just a “new toy for the IT department to play with”
  3. Your budget request is both realistic and justified.

Use Data to Your Advantage

One of the best ways to convince those who are in charge that there is a credible cyber threat against the organization is to provide them with quantifiable metrics. Don’t resort to gathering statistics from the Internet. Your organization’s financial staff is probably smart enough to know that most of those statistics are manufactured by security companies who are trying to sell a product or service. Instead, gather your own metrics from inside your organization by using tools that are freely available for download.

Specops for example, offers a free Password Auditor that can generate reports demonstrating the effectiveness of your organization’s password policy and existing password security vulnerabilities. This free tool can also help you to identify other vulnerabilities, such as accounts that are using passwords that are known to have been leaked or passwords that do not adhere to compliance standards or industry best practices.

Example of Specops Password Auditor results in an Active Directory environment

Of course, this is just one of the many free security tools that are available for download. In any case, it is important to use metrics from within your own organization to demonstrate the fact that the security problem that you are trying to solve is real.

Highlight What a Solution Would Do

Once you demonstrate the problem to those who are in charge of the organization’s finances, do not make the mistake of leaving them guessing as to how you are planning on solving the problem. Be prepared to clearly explain what tools you are planning on using, and how those tools will solve the problem that you have demonstrated.

It’s a good idea to use visuals to demonstrate the practicality of your proposed solution. Be sure to explain how the problem is solved in non-technical language and enhance your argument with examples that are specific to your organization.

Estimated Time of Implementation and Seeing Results

We have probably all heard horror stories of IT projects that have gone off the rails. Organizations sometimes spend millions of dollars and invest years of planning into IT projects that never ultimately materialize. That being the case, it is important to set everyone’s mind at ease by showing them exactly how long it will take to get your proposed solution up and running and then how much additional time will be needed in order to achieve the desired result.

When you are making these projections, be careful to be realistic and not to make promises based on an overly ambitious implementation schedule. You should also be prepared to explain how you arrived at your projection. Keep in mind upcoming projects, company-wide goals, and fiscal year ideals when factoring in timing.

Demonstrate the Estimated Savings

Although security is of course a concern for most organizations, those who are in charge of an organization’s finances typically want to see some sort of return on investment. As such, it is important to consider how your proposed solution might save the company money. A few ideas might include:

  • Saving the IT department time, thereby reducing the number of overtime hours worked
  • Avoiding a regulatory penalty that could cost the organization a lot of money
  • Bringing down insurance premiums because data is being better protected

Of course, these are just ideas. Every situation is different, and you will need to consider how your security project can produce a return on investment given your own unique circumstances. It is important to include a cost-saving element for clarity sake, even if it is citing the average cost of a data breach in your industry.

Show You’ve Done Your Homework with a Pricing Comparison

As you pitch your proposed solution, stakeholders are almost certain to ask whether there might be a less expensive product that would accomplish your objectives. As such, it’s important to spend some time researching the solutions offered by competing vendors. Here are a few things that you should be prepared to demonstrate:

  • The total cost for implementing each potential solution (this may include licensing, labor, support, and hardware costs)
  • Why you are proposing a particular solution even if it is not the least expensive
  • If your solution is the least expensive, then be prepared to explain what you might be giving up by using the cheapest vendor.
  • What each vendor offers relative to the others

A Few Quick Tips

As you make your budgetary pitch, keep in mind that those to whom you are presenting likely have a limited understanding of IT concepts. Avoid using unnecessary technical jargon and be prepared to clearly explain key concepts, but without sounding condescending in the process.

It’s also smart to anticipate any questions that may be asked of you and have answers to those questions ready to go. This is especially true if there is a particular question that makes you a little bit uncomfortable.

Present your information clearly, confidently, and in a concise manner (I.e., make it quick!) so you can make your case without wasting time.

Source:
https://thehackernews.com/2022/07/a-simple-formula-for-getting-your-it.html

How the James Webb Telescope’s cosmic pictures impacted the Internet

The James Webb Telescope reveals emerging stellar nurseries and individual stars in the Carina Nebula that were previously obscured. Credits: NASA, ESA, CSA, and STScI. Full image here.

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” — Carl Sagan

In the past few years, space technology and travel have been trending with increased  attention and endeavors (including private ones). In our 2021 Year in Review we showed how NASA and SpaceX flew higher, at least in terms of interest on the Internet.

This week, NASA in collaboration with the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), released the first images from the James Webb Telescope (JWST) which conducts infrared astronomy to “reveal the unseen universe”.

Webb’s First Deep Field is the first operational image taken by the James Webb Space Telescope, depicting a galaxy cluster with a distance of 5.12 billion light-years from Earth. Revealed to the public on 11 July 2022. Credits: NASA, ESA, CSA, and STScI. Full image here.

So, let’s dig into something we really like here at Cloudflare, checking how real life and human interest has an impact on the Internet. In terms of general Internet traffic in the US, Radar shows us that there was an increase both on July 11 and July 12, compared to the previous week (bear in mind that July 4, the previous Monday, was the Independence Day holiday in the US).

Next, we look at DNS request trends to get a sense of traffic to Internet properties (and using from this point on EST time in all the charts). Let’s start with the cornucopia of NASA, ESA and other websites (there are many, some dedicated just to the James Webb Telescope findings).

There are two clear spikes in the next chart. The first was around the time the first galaxy cluster infrared image was announced by Joe Biden, on Monday, July 11, 2022 (at 17:00), with traffic rising 13x higher than in the previous week. There was also a 5x spike at 01:00 EST that evening. The second spike was higher and longer and happened during Tuesday, July 12, 2022, when more images were revealed. Tuesday’s peak was at 10:00, with traffic being 19x higher than in the previous week — traffic was higher than 10x between 09:00 and 13:00.

The first image was presented by US president at around 17:00 on July 11. DNS traffic was 1.5x higher to White House-related websites than any time in the preceding month.

Conclusion: space, the final frontier

As we saw in 2021, space projects and announcements continue to have a clear impact on the Internet, in this case in our DNS request view of Internet traffic. So far, what the James Webb Telescope images are showing us is a glimpse of a never-before-seen picture of parts of the universe (there’s no lack of excitement in Cloudflare’s internal chat groups).

You can keep an eye on these and other trends using Cloudflare Radar and follow @CloudflareRadar on Twitter — recently we covered extensively Canada’s Internet outage.

We protect entire corporate networks, help customers build Internet-scale applications efficiently, accelerate any website or Internet applicationward off DDoS attacks, keep hackers at bay, and can help you on your journey to Zero Trust.

Visit 1.1.1.1 from any device to get started with our free app that makes your Internet faster and safer.

To learn more about our mission to help build a better Internet, start here. If you’re looking for a new career direction, check out our open positions.

Source :

Mantis – the most powerful botnet to date

In June 2022, we reported on the largest HTTPS DDoS attack that we’ve ever mitigated — a 26 million request per second attack – the largest attack on record. Our systems automatically detected and mitigated this attack and many more. Since then, we have been tracking this botnet, which we’ve called “Mantis”, and the attacks it has launched against almost a thousand Cloudflare customers.

Cloudflare WAF/CDN customers are protected against HTTP DDoS attacks including Mantis attacks. Please refer to the bottom of this blog for additional guidance on how to best protect your Internet properties against DDoS attacks.

Have you met Mantis?

We named the botnet that launched the 26M rps (requests per second) DDoS attack “Mantis” as it is also like the Mantis shrimp, small but very powerful. Mantis shrimps, also known as “thumb-splitters”, are very small; less than 10 cm in length, but their claws are so powerful that they can generate a shock wave with a force of 1,500 Newtons at speeds of 83 km/h from a standing start. Similarly, the Mantis botnet operates a small fleet of approximately 5,000 bots, but with them can generate a massive force — responsible for the largest HTTP DDoS attacks we have ever observed.

Image of the Mantis shrimp from Wikipedia
Mantis shrimp. Source: Wikipedia.

The Mantis botnet was able to generate the 26M HTTPS requests per second attack using only 5,000 bots. I’ll repeat that: 26 million HTTPS requests per second using only 5,000 bots. That’s an average of 5,200 HTTPS rps per bot. Generating 26M HTTP requests is hard enough to do without the extra overhead of establishing a secure connection, but Mantis did it over HTTPS. HTTPS DDoS attacks are more expensive in terms of required computational resources because of the higher cost of establishing a secure TLS encrypted connection. This stands out and highlights the unique strength behind this botnet.

Graph of the 26 million requests per second DDoS attack

As opposed to “traditional” botnets that are formed of Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as DVRs, CC cameras, or smoke detectors, Mantis uses hijacked virtual machines and powerful servers. This means that each bot has a lot more computational resources — resulting in this combined thumb-splitting strength.

Mantis is the next evolution of the Meris botnet. The Meris botnet relied on MikroTik devices, but Mantis has branched out to include a variety of VM platforms and supports running various HTTP proxies to launch attacks. The name Mantis was chosen to be similar to “Meris” to reflect its origin, and also because this evolution hits hard and fast. Over the past few weeks, Mantis has been especially active directing its strengths towards almost 1,000 Cloudflare customers.

Graphic design of a botnet

Who is Mantis attacking?

In our recent DDoS attack trends report, we talked about the increasing number of HTTP DDoS attacks. In the past quarter, HTTP DDoS attacks increased by 72%, and Mantis has surely contributed to that growth. Over the past month, Mantis has launched over 3,000 HTTP DDoS attacks against Cloudflare customers.

When we take a look at Mantis’ targets we can see that the top attacked industry was the Internet & Telecommunications industry with 36% of attack share. In second place, the News, Media & Publishing industry, followed by Gaming and Finance.

When we look at where these companies are located, we can see that over 20% of the DDoS attacks targeted US-based companies, over 15% Russia-based companies, and less than five percent included Turkey, France, Poland, Ukraine, and more.

How to protect against Mantis and other DDoS attacks

Cloudflare’s automated DDoS protection system leverages dynamic fingerprinting to detect and mitigate DDoS attacks. The system is exposed to customers as the HTTP DDoS Managed Ruleset. The ruleset is enabled and applying mitigation actions by default, so if you haven’t made any changes, there is no action for you to take — you are protected. You can also review our guides Best Practices: DoS preventive measures and Responding to DDoS attacks for additional tips and recommendations on how to optimize your Cloudflare configurations.

If you are only using Magic Transit or Spectrum but also operate HTTP applications that are not behind Cloudflare, it is recommended to onboard them to Cloudflare’s WAF/CDN service to benefit from L7 protection.

We protect entire corporate networks, help customers build Internet-scale applications efficiently, accelerate any website or Internet applicationward off DDoS attacks, keep hackers at bay, and can help you on your journey to Zero Trust.

Visit 1.1.1.1 from any device to get started with our free app that makes your Internet faster and safer.

To learn more about our mission to help build a better Internet, start here. If you’re looking for a new career direction, check out our open positions.

Source:
https://blog.cloudflare.com/mantis-botnet/

New Cache Side Channel Attack Can De-Anonymize Targeted Online Users

A group of academics from the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) has warned of a novel technique that could be used to defeat anonymity protections and identify a unique website visitor.

“An attacker who has complete or partial control over a website can learn whether a specific target (i.e., a unique individual) is browsing the website,” the researchers said. “The attacker knows this target only through a public identifier, such as an email address or a Twitter handle.”

The cache-based targeted de-anonymization attack is a cross-site leak that involves the adversary leveraging a service such as Google Drive, Dropbox, or YouTube to privately share a resource (e.g., image, video, or a YouTube playlist) with the target, followed by embedding the shared resource into the attack website.

This can be achieved by, say, privately sharing the resource with the target using the victim’s email address or the appropriate username associated with the service and then inserting the leaky resource using an <iframe> HTML tag.

In the next step, the attacker tricks the victim into visiting the malicious website and clicking on the aforementioned content, causing the shared resource to be loaded as a pop-under window (as opposed to a pop-up) or a browser tab — a method that’s been used by advertisers to sneakily load ads.

This exploit page, as it’s rendered by the target’s browser, is used to determine if the visitor can access the shared resource, successful access indicating that the visitor is indeed the intended target.

The attack, in a nutshell, aims to unmask the users of a website under the attacker’s control by connecting the list of accounts tied to those individuals with their social media accounts or email addresses through a piece of shared content.

In a hypothetical scenario, a bad actor could share a video hosted on Google Drive with a target’s email address, and follow it up by inserting this video in the lure website. Thus when visitors land on the portal, a successful loading of the video could be used as a yardstick to infer if their victim is one among them.

anonymity

The attacks, which are practical to exploit across desktop and mobile systems with multiple CPU microarchitectures and different web browsers, are made possible by means of a cache-based side channel that’s used to glean if the shared resource has been loaded and therefore distinguish between targeted and non-targeted users.

Put differently, the idea is to observe the subtle timing differences that arise when the shared resource is being accessed by the two sets of users, which, in turn, occurs due to differences in the time it takes to return an appropriate response from the web server depending on the user’s authorization status.

The attacks also take into account a second set of differences on the client-side that happens when the web browser renders the relevant content or error page based on the response received.

“There are two main causes for differences in the observed side channel leakages between targeted and non-targeted users – a server-side timing difference and a client-side rendering difference,” the researchers said.

Cache Side Channel Attack

While most popular platforms such as those from Google, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and TikTok were found susceptible, one notable service that’s immune to the attack is Apple iCloud.

It’s worth pointing out the de-anonymization method banks on the prerequisite that the targeted user is already logged in to the service. As mitigations, the researchers have released a browser extension called Leakuidator+ that’s available for ChromeFirefox, and Tor browsers.

To counter the timing and rendering side channels, website owners are recommended to design web servers to return their responses in constant time, irrespective of whether the user is provisioned to access the shared resource, and make their error pages as similar as possible to the content pages to minimize the attacker-observable differences.

“As an example, if an authorized user was going to be shown a video, the error page for the non-targeted user should also be made to show a video,” the researchers said, adding websites should also be made to require user interaction before rendering content.

“Knowing the precise identity of the person who is currently visiting a website can be the starting point for a range of nefarious targeted activities that can be executed by the operator of that website.”

The findings arrive weeks after researchers from the University of Hamburg, Germany, demonstrated that mobile devices leak identifying information such as passwords and past holiday locations via Wi-Fi probe requests.

In a related development, MIT researchers last month revealed the root cause behind a website fingerprinting attack as not due to signals generated by cache contention (aka a cache-based side channel) but rather due to system interrupts, while showing that interrupt-based side channels can be used to mount a powerful website fingerprinting attack.

Source :
https://thehackernews.com/2022/07/new-cache-side-channel-attack-can-de.html

5 Key Things We Learned from CISOs of Smaller Enterprises Survey

New survey reveals lack of staff, skills, and resources driving smaller teams to outsource security.

As business begins its return to normalcy (however “normal” may look), CISOs at small and medium-size enterprises (500 – 10,000 employees) were asked to share their cybersecurity challenges and priorities, and their responses were compared the results with those of a similar survey from 2021.

Here are the 5 key things we learned from 200 responses:

— Remote Work Has Accelerated the Use of EDR Technologies

In 2021, 52% of CISOs surveyed were relying on endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools. This year that number has leapt to 85%. In contrast, last year 45% were using network detection and response (NDR) tools, while this year just 6% employ NDR. Compared to 2021, double the number of CISOs and their organizations are seeing the value of extended detection and response (XDR) tools, which combine EDR with integrated network signals. This is likely due to the increase in remote work, which is more difficult to secure than when employees work within the company’s network environment.

— 90% of CISOs Use an MDR Solution

There is a massive skills gap in the cybersecurity industry, and CISOs are under increasing pressure to recruit internally. Especially in small security teams where additional headcount is not the answer, CISOs are turning to outsourced services to fill the void. In 2021, 47% of CISOs surveyed relied on a Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), while 53% were using a managed detection and response (MDR) service. This year, just 21% are using an MSSP, and 90% are using MDR.

— Overlapping Threat Protection Tools are the #1 Pain Point for Small Teams

The majority (87%) of companies with small security teams struggle to manage and operate their threat protection products. Among these companies, 44% struggle with overlapping capabilities, while 42% struggle to visualize the full picture of an attack when it occurs. These challenges are intrinsically connected, as teams find it difficult to get a single, comprehensive view with multiple tools.

— Small Security Teams Are Ignoring More Alerts

Small security teams are giving less attention to their security alerts. Last year 14% of CISOs said they look only at critical alerts, while this year that number jumped to 21%. In addition, organizations are increasingly letting automation take the wheel. Last year, 16% said they ignore automatically remediated alerts, and this year that’s true for 34% of small security teams.

— 96% of CISOs Are Planning to Consolidate Security Platforms

Almost all CISOs surveyed have consolidation of security tools on their to-do lists, compared to 61% in 2021. Not only does consolidation reduce the number of alerts – making it easier to prioritize and view all threats – respondents believe it will stop them from missing threats (57%), reduce the need for specific expertise (56%), and make it easier to correlate findings and visualize the risk landscape (46%). XDR technologies have emerged as the preferred method of consolidation, with 63% of CISOs calling it their top choice.

Download 2022 CISO Survey of Small Cyber Security Teams to see all the results.

Source :
https://thehackernews.com/2022/07/5-key-things-we-learned-from-cisos-of.html

Exit mobile version