Threat Level: green Handler on Duty: Didier Stevens

SANS ISC: InfoSec Handlers Diary Blog - Internet Storm Center Diary 2014-01-14 InfoSec Handlers Diary Blog


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

Oracle Critical Patch Update January 2014

Published: 2014-01-14
Last Updated: 2014-01-15 01:40:39 UTC
by Johannes Ullrich (Version: 1)
1 comment(s)

Today we also got Oracle's quarterly "Critical Patch Update". As announced, we got a gross or 144 different patches from Oracle. But remember that these patches affect 47 different products (if I counted right).

The product we are overall most worried about is Java. With this CPU, 34 security vulnerabilities are fixed in Java SE. So again: Patch or disable (fast).

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/cpujan2014-1972949.html

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

Keywords: cpu oracle patch
1 comment(s)

Adobe Patch Tuesday January 2014

Published: 2014-01-14
Last Updated: 2014-01-14 21:04:51 UTC
by Johannes Ullrich (Version: 1)
7 comment(s)

 Adobe released two bulletins today:

1 - Reader/Acrobat

This bulletin fixes three vulnerabilities. Adobe rates this one "Priority 1" meaning that these vulnerabilities are already exploited in targeted attacks and administrators should patch ASAP.

After the patch is applied, you should be running Acrobat/Reader 11.0.06 or 10.1.9 .

2 - Flash Player and Air

The flash player patch fixes two vulnerabilities. The Flash player problem is rated "Priority 1" for Windows and OS X. The Air vulnerability is rated "3" for all operating systems. For Linux, either patch is rated "3".

Patching flash is a bit more complex in that it is included with some browsers, in which case you will need to update the browser. For example Internet Explorer 11 and Chrome include Flash.

 

http://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/flash-player/apsb14-01.html
http://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/flash-player/apsb14-02.html

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

Keywords: adobe patch
7 comment(s)

Microsoft Patch Tuesday January 2014

Published: 2014-01-14
Last Updated: 2014-01-14 18:03:19 UTC
by Johannes Ullrich (Version: 1)
2 comment(s)

Overview of the January 2014 Microsoft patches and their status.

 

# Affected Contra Indications - KB Known Exploits Microsoft rating(**) ISC rating(*)
clients servers
MS14-001 Code Remote Execution Vulnerability in Microsoft Word and Office Web apps
(ReplacesMS13-072 MS13-084 MS13-086 MS13-100 )
Word and SharePoint / Office Web Apps components related to Word Docs.
CVE-2014-0258
CVE-2014-0259
CVE-2014-0260
CVE-2014-0260
KB 2916605 No. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 1
Critical Critical
MS14-002 Privilege Escalation Vulnerabilities in Windows Kernel
(ReplacesMS10-099 )
NDPROXY driver
CVE-2013-5065
KB 2914368 publicly disclosed and used in targeted attacks. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 1
Important Important
MS14-003 Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability in Windows Kernel Mode Drivers
(ReplacesMS13-101 )
win32k.sys Kernel Mode Driver
CVE-2014-0262
KB 2913602 No. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 1
Important Important
MS14-004 Denial of Service Vulnerability in Microsoft Dynamics AX
(Replaces )
Microsoft Dynamics AX
CVE-2014-0261
KB 2880826 No. Severity:Important
Exploitability: 1
N/A 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

 

2 comment(s)

Spamming and scanning botnets - is there something I can do to block them from my site?

Published: 2014-01-14
Last Updated: 2014-01-14 12:12:26 UTC
by Chris Mohan (Version: 1)
4 comment(s)
Spamming and scanning botnets - is there something I can do to block them from my site?
 
This question keeps popping up on forums and all places popular with those beleaguer souls despondent of the random spamming and over filled logs from scanning. Although this isn't a Magic ball question answer does come out a: Maybe, Maybe not.
 
The reason behind the ambiguity is logical, to a degree; it’s easy trying to hinder, frustrate and reduce the effectiveness of automated botnet processes, like posting and scanning rather than stop them dead. 
 
Why? Glad you asked.
 
Botnets tend to a number of systems located in random locations globally, you'll get some that are regional specific, but the majority we at the Internet Storm Center (ISC) see are global in distribution. So unless you can pick out only the  six IP addresses you completely trust as good*, you’re accessible to every system on the planet that has an internet link. 
 
First and foremost you need to look at your logs find those non-human attacks or blog spamming posts. We keep saying here at the ISC you need to understand your logs. If you don’t understand what you’re seeing research it or writing in to us. It doesn’t take too long to be able to work out a real human interaction against an automated non-human one. Have a look at one our recent posts [1] to see the types of patterns automated processes leave behind in logs. 
 
Let say you are now at one with your logs files, so what next? From a random reader's submission for the bots they logged I did a little Excel shuffling, then some IP geo-locationing followed by more Excel-ing, finally braking the IP addressed down to which country they came from. The results were interesting as Spain has the highest set of bad IPs (13%), follow by: Argentina (9%), Italy(8%), Colombia (5%), United States (5%), United Kingdom (4%), Mexico (4%), Romania (4%) and Germany (4%).
 
So what can we divine from these random statistics? First we can acknowledge this is botnet has a significant portion of it bots in Europe, second the next biggest group is in South America, leave the United States well out of the picture. Yeah so what, I hear you yell. Now go back on look at the locations your human visitors came from. With a simple bit of review, you’ll be able to work out you never see visitors, say from South America and New Zealand IP address ranages. 
 
Now you can make the determination to black list (deny) net blocks in those countries from very be able to access your web site or blog. On the flip side you could block everything and white list (allow) certain countries. Or go crazy and play wack-a-mole by adding in every single bad IP address to a block list. It’s up to you.
 
The point of this piece is look at your logs, understand your visitors, work out who actually needs to get to your site and block out the rest if the now constant automated scans annoy you.
 
Remember Dshield loves logs [2] and Handlers love weird logs and packets, so start off your New Year by looking at your logs and sending in anything wild, crazy or that just seems plain odd to us at the Storm Center [3]. You’ll learn some new and might help someone who's been puzzling over the same questions you’re looking at now.
 
[1] https://isc.sans.edu/diary/Massive+PHP+RFI+scans/17387
[2] https://isc.sans.edu/howto.html 
[3] https://isc.sans.edu/contact.html#contact-form 
 
* This kinda of breaks the Internet model and takes us back to the good ol’day of having host file to resolve stuff on the ‘Net
 

Chris Mohan --- Internet Storm Center Handler on Duty

4 comment(s)
Diary Archives