Threat Level: green Handler on Duty: Jan Kopriva

SANS ISC: InfoSec Handlers Diary Blog InfoSec Handlers Diary Blog


Sign Up for Free!   Forgot Password?
Log In or Sign Up for Free!

Adobe Updates today as well.

Published: 2013-12-10
Last Updated: 2013-12-10 21:36:14 UTC
by Rob VandenBrink (Version: 2)
3 comment(s)

Adobe also has published updates today for Flash Player, resolving CVE-2013-5331 and CVE-2013-5332.

This is a remote execution vulnerability, by way of a malicious SWF (Flash) content in an MS Word document.

The versions will vary from platform to platform, but if you are running Flash Player you should update soon (today if possible).

Shockwave Player also sees an update today, addressing CVE-2013-5333 and CVE-2013-5334 on the Windows and Mac platforms.  With this update applied, both platforms should be at version 12.0.7.148

These exploits also result in remote execution, so if you have Shockwave Player installed today is a good day to update, either right before or right after the Microsoft reboot.

You'd think by now most major products would have an auto update or a "click here to update" feature.   From this note, perhaps you'd think that Adobe might be unique in not having this, but you'd be surprised what other major system components don't update themselves!

===============
Rob VandenBrink
Metafore

Keywords: adobe flash
3 comment(s)

Microsoft December Patch Tuesday

Published: 2013-12-10
Last Updated: 2013-12-10 20:39:23 UTC
by Johannes Ullrich (Version: 1)
2 comment(s)

Overview of the December 2013 Microsoft patches and their status.

# Affected Contra Indications - KB Known Exploits Microsoft rating(**) ISC rating(*)
clients servers
MS13-096 Code Execution Vulnerability in GDI+
(ReplacesMS13-054 )
GDI+ TIFF Codec (Vista, Windows 2008, Office 2003, Office 2007, Office 2010, Lync 2010, Lync 2013
CVE-2013-3906
KB 2908005 Yes. Severity:Critical
Exploitability: 1
PATCH NOW! Critical
MS13-097 Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer
(ReplacesMS13-088 )
Windows Signature Validation
CVE-2013-5045
CVE-2013-5046
CVE-2013-5047
CVE-2013-5048
CVE-2013-5049
CVE-2013-5051
CVE-2013-5052
KB 2898785 No. Severity:Critical
Exploitability: 1,1,1,1,1,2,1
Critical Important
MS13-098 Remote Code Execution Vulnerabilitiy in Windows
 
Windows Signature Validation
CVE-2013-3900
KB 2893294 Yes (targeted attacks). Severity:Critical
Exploitability: 1
PATCH NOW! Critical
MS13-099 Remote Execution Vulnerability in Microsoft Scripting Runtime Object Library
 
Windows Script 5.6, 5.7, 5.8
CVE-2013-5056
KB 2909158 No. Severity:Critical
Exploitability: 1
Critical Important
MS13-100 Remote Code Execution in Microsoft SharePoint Server
(ReplacesMS13-067 MS13-084 )
SharePoint Server
CVE-2013-5059
KB 2904244 No. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 1
N/A Critical
MS13-101 Privilege Elevation Vulnerabilities in Kernel Mode Drivers
(ReplacesMS11-081 )
Kernel Mode Drivers
CVE-2013-3899
CVE-2013-3902
CVE-2013-3903
CVE-2013-3907
CVE-2013-5058
KB 2880430 No. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 2,1,3,2,3
Important Important
MS13-102 Privilege Elevation Vulnerability in LPC Client/Server
(ReplacesMS13-062 )
LPC Client/Server XP/2003 ONLY
CVE-2013-3878
KB 2998715 No. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 1
Important Important
MS13-103 Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability in ASP.NET
 
ASP.NET SingalR Forever Frame Transport Protocol
CVE-2013-5042
KB 2905238 No. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 1
N/A Important
MS13-104 Information Disclosure Vulnerability in Microsoft Office
(Replaces )
Office 2013
CVE-2013-5054
KB 2909976 No. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 3
Important Less Important
MS13-105 Remote Code Execution in Microsoft Exchange Server
(ReplacesMS13-061 )
WebReady Document Viewing and Data Loss Prevention on Exchange Server
CVE-2013-5763
CVE-2013-5791
CVE-2013-1330
CVE-2013-5072
KB 2915705 No. Severity:Critical
Exploitability: 3
N/A Critical
MS13-106 ASLR Bypass Vulnerability in Microsoft Office Shared Component
 
Microsoft Office 2007 and 2010
CVE-2013-5057
KB 2905238 Yes (targeted attacks). Severity:Important
Exploitability: ?
Important Important
We will update issues on this page for about a week or so as they evolve.
We appreciate updates
US based customers can call Microsoft for free patch related support on 1-866-PCSAFETY
(*): ISC rating
  • We use 4 levels:
    • PATCH NOW: Typically used where we see immediate danger of exploitation. Typical environments will want to deploy these patches ASAP. Workarounds are typically not accepted by users or are not possible. This rating is often used when typical deployments make it vulnerable and exploits are being used or easy to obtain or make.
    • Critical: Anything that needs little to become "interesting" for the dark side. Best approach is to test and deploy ASAP. Workarounds can give more time to test.
    • Important: Things where more testing and other measures can help.
    • Less Urgent: Typically we expect the impact if left unpatched to be not that big a deal in the short term. Do not forget them however.
  • The difference between the client and server rating is based on how you use the affected machine. We take into account the typical client and server deployment in the usage of the machine and the common measures people typically have in place already. Measures we presume are simple best practices for servers such as not using outlook, MSIE, word etc. to do traditional office or leisure work.
  • The rating is not a risk analysis as such. It is a rating of importance of the vulnerability and the perceived or even predicted threat for affected systems. The rating does not account for the number of affected systems there are. It is for an affected system in a typical worst-case role.
  • Only the organization itself is in a position to do a full risk analysis involving the presence (or lack of) affected systems, the actually implemented measures, the impact on their operation and the value of the assets involved.
  • All patches released by a vendor are important enough to have a close look if you use the affected systems. There is little incentive for vendors to publicize patches that do not have some form of risk to them.

(**): The exploitability rating we show is the worst of them all due to the too large number of ratings Microsoft assigns to some of the patches.

------
Johannes B. Ullrich, Ph.D.
SANS Technology Institute
Twitter

Keywords: mspatchday
2 comment(s)

Those Look Just Like Hashes!

Published: 2013-12-10
Last Updated: 2013-12-10 04:47:50 UTC
by Rob VandenBrink (Version: 1)
8 comment(s)

Have you ever during a penetration test collected a list of values that look very much like hashes, and thought "I could maybe start cracking those, if I only knew what algorithm was used to calculate those hash values".

I had exactly this happen recently.  In the past I've found any one of the dozens of lists of hash outputs on the net to be handy - Hashcat for instance has a pretty complete list posted ( http://hashcat.net/wiki/doku.php?id=example_hashes ).  But this time I donned my googles and found the handy Hash Identifier python script at https://code.google.com/p/hash-identifier/ .  This tool really saves a lot of work - these days my eyes are too old and my fingers are too big to be counting tiny characters in a hash string with any accuracy.

Hash_ID.py does a nice job of the more commmon hashes.  Of course, if someone has the bad judgement to hash the output of one algorithm with another one (this is a really BAD idea if you are trying to prevent collisions), an identification utility like this will only id the last hash algorithm used.

Did it work for me?  Yes, yes it did!  It nicely identified the hash algorithms used.  With the hashes and the algorithm, I was able to dump the list into OCLHashcat on a VM I've got for this (described here https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/Building+Your+Own+GPU+Enabled+Private+Cloud/16505).  And the values did indeed give me a list of passwords, which I was then able to use against several different systems.

The finding of course in this situation was NOT "Nyah Nyah, I got in!", that's NEVER the finding.  What goes in the report is (in a tactful way) "Application XYZ is using a simple unsalted hash algorithm to protect passwords", along with an english-language explanation of why exactly this is a bad idea, worded so that the manager of the coder who owns the XYZ application will understand it.

The end goal of a pentest isn't really to get in.  The goal of a pentest is to explain to your client why fixing security related issues will benefit their business, and to get that explanation in front of the folks who decide which projects get priority.  Breaking in is usually just the most fun way to make your point effectively.

Back to the tool at hand - if you've used a different hash identification utility, let us know using the comment form at the bottom of this page!

===============
Rob VandenBrink
Metafore

8 comment(s)
Diary Archives