ImageTragick: Another Vulnerability, Another Nickname

ImageTragick: Another Vulnerability, Another Nickname
Introduction On Tuesday 2016-05-03, we started seeing reports about a vulnerability for a cross-platform suite named ImageMagick [1, 2, 3]. This new vulnerability has been nicknamed "ImageTragick" and has its own website. Apparently, the vulnerability will be assigned to CVE-2016-3714. It wasn't yet on mitre.org's CVE site when I wrote this diary. Johannes Ullrich already discussed this vulnerability in yesterday's ISC StormCast for 2016-05-04, but there's been more press about it. Should ImageTragick get even more coverage? Heck, I'll jump on the bandwagon! Shown above: For a vulnerability logo so new, that wizard looks so old. Details Many servers hosting social media sites, blogs, and content management systems (CMS) rely on ImageMagick-based processing so they can resize images uploaded by end users. This has the potential to affect a great deal of servers. How many? The reports we've seen list the number of potential targets in vague terms, using words like large, huge, or countless. ImageMagick has proposed a configuration solution, but no actual software patch or product update has been announced yet. We might see an official update from ImageMagick this coming weekend [4]. At least one proof of concept (PoC) exploit has already been developed [5]. Many expect to see CVE-2016–3714 exploits in the wild soon. This provides yet another opportunity for criminal groups to conduct automated scans searching for vulnerable servers world-wide. Such automated scans have been responsible for compromising thousands of websites in recent years running software like Wordpress, Joomla, and many other potentially vulnerable applications. Meanwhile, social media reveals the same type of mixed reactions we've seen before when pairing a newly-announced vulnerability with a nickname. Shown above: Discussion about using ImageTragick as a nickname on Twitter. Final words Do you have any comments on this current vulnerability? Has anyone seen CVE-2016–3714 being exploited in the wild yet? Any thoughts on the use of vulnerability nicknames and logos? If so, feel free to leave a comment. --- Brad Duncan brad [at] malware-traffic-analysis.net References: [1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/05/03/18 [2] http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/easily-exploited-bug-exposes-huge-number-of-sites-to-code-execution-attacks/ [3] https://blog.sucuri.net/2016/05/imagemagick-remote-command-execution-vulnerability.html [4] http://www.securityweek.com/attackers-exploit-critical-imagemagick-vulnerability [5] https://twitter.com/Viss/status/727613890020806656	Brad 377 Posts ISC Handler May 5th 2016
Subscribe	May 5th 2016 4 years ago
"we did the lame thing because it works" Well you know what, the end does not justify the means. Not every vuln can or should have a name and a logo. Your bug is not some special snowflake. You don't get to decide how important it is, because guess what, it's probably not. There were many bugs before yours. There will be many after. Stop it. Knock it off. You do us ALL a disservice.	Anonymous
Quote	May 5th 2016 4 years ago
Quoting Anonymous:"we did the lame thing because it works" Well you know what, the end does not justify the means. Not every vuln can or should have a name and a logo. Your bug is not some special snowflake. You don't get to decide how important it is, because guess what, it's probably not. There were many bugs before yours. There will be many after. Stop it. Knock it off. You do us ALL a disservice. I think the nicknames are fine. Helps people know exactly what you're talking about. I can't go to some of my coworkers and say CVE-xxxx-xxxx but I can go say Heartbleed or others and they know exactly what I'm talking about. Carl Windsor probably thinks DNS is dumb too.	Anonymous
Quote	May 5th 2016 4 years ago
Quoting Anonymous:"we did the lame thing because it works" Well you know what, the end does not justify the means. Not every vuln can or should have a name and a logo. Your bug is not some special snowflake. You don't get to decide how important it is, because guess what, it's probably not. There were many bugs before yours. There will be many after. Stop it. Knock it off. You do us ALL a disservice. Agree.	Anonymous
Quote	May 6th 2016 4 years ago

Introduction

On Tuesday 2016-05-03, we started seeing reports about a vulnerability for a cross-platform suite named ImageMagick [1, 2, 3]. This new vulnerability has been nicknamed "ImageTragick" and has its own website. Apparently, the vulnerability will be assigned to CVE-2016-3714. It wasn't yet on mitre.org's CVE site when I wrote this diary.

Johannes Ullrich already discussed this vulnerability in yesterday's ISC StormCast for 2016-05-04, but there's been more press about it. Should ImageTragick get even more coverage? Heck, I'll jump on the bandwagon!

Shown above: For a vulnerability logo so new, that wizard looks so old.

Details

Many servers hosting social media sites, blogs, and content management systems (CMS) rely on ImageMagick-based processing so they can resize images uploaded by end users. This has the potential to affect a great deal of servers. How many? The reports we've seen list the number of potential targets in vague terms, using words like large, huge, or countless.

ImageMagick has proposed a configuration solution, but no actual software patch or product update has been announced yet. We might see an official update from ImageMagick this coming weekend [4].

At least one proof of concept (PoC) exploit has already been developed [5]. Many expect to see CVE-2016–3714 exploits in the wild soon. This provides yet another opportunity for criminal groups to conduct automated scans searching for vulnerable servers world-wide. Such automated scans have been responsible for compromising thousands of websites in recent years running software like Wordpress, Joomla, and many other potentially vulnerable applications.

Meanwhile, social media reveals the same type of mixed reactions we've seen before when pairing a newly-announced vulnerability with a nickname.

Shown above: Discussion about using ImageTragick as a nickname on Twitter.

Final words

Do you have any comments on this current vulnerability? Has anyone seen CVE-2016–3714 being exploited in the wild yet? Any thoughts on the use of vulnerability nicknames and logos? If so, feel free to leave a comment.

---
Brad Duncan
brad [at] malware-traffic-analysis.net

References:

[1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/05/03/18
[2] http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/easily-exploited-bug-exposes-huge-number-of-sites-to-code-execution-attacks/
[3] https://blog.sucuri.net/2016/05/imagemagick-remote-command-execution-vulnerability.html
[4] http://www.securityweek.com/attackers-exploit-critical-imagemagick-vulnerability
[5] https://twitter.com/Viss/status/727613890020806656

Brad

377 Posts
ISC Handler

May 5th 2016

"we did the lame thing because it works" Well you know what, the end does not justify the means. Not every vuln can or should have a name and a logo. Your bug is not some special snowflake. You don't get to decide how important it is, because guess what, it's probably not. There were many bugs before yours. There will be many after. Stop it. Knock it off. You do us ALL a disservice.

Anonymous

Quoting Anonymous:"we did the lame thing because it works" Well you know what, the end does not justify the means. Not every vuln can or should have a name and a logo. Your bug is not some special snowflake. You don't get to decide how important it is, because guess what, it's probably not. There were many bugs before yours. There will be many after. Stop it. Knock it off. You do us ALL a disservice.

I think the nicknames are fine. Helps people know exactly what you're talking about. I can't go to some of my coworkers and say CVE-xxxx-xxxx but I can go say Heartbleed or others and they know exactly what I'm talking about. Carl Windsor probably thinks DNS is dumb too.

Anonymous

Quoting Anonymous:"we did the lame thing because it works" Well you know what, the end does not justify the means. Not every vuln can or should have a name and a logo. Your bug is not some special snowflake. You don't get to decide how important it is, because guess what, it's probably not. There were many bugs before yours. There will be many after. Stop it. Knock it off. You do us ALL a disservice.

Agree.

Anonymous