Adobe Updates today as well.
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
Microsoft December Patch Tuesday
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 appreciate updates
US based customers can call Microsoft for free patch related support on 1-866-PCSAFETY
-
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
Those Look Just Like Hashes!
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
Comments