Putting the “Ooo!” Back in ShmooCon

February 2nd, 2010

Some of you may be aware of my upcoming “Windows File Pseudonyms” presentation at Shmoocon, but perhaps you don’t know what it’s all about, or maybe you haven’t got a ticket (and you don’t want to spend $600 on one from eBay that may turn out to be a barcode pulled off a box of Pwny-Os cereal [breakfast of 31337++ champions]).

shmoocon.logoWell, that’s OK, because this blog post is going to be a super-sweet sneak preview!

In summary, Windows systems will accept a wide range of different variations on the same file name and still serve up the same file. Some of these are well known and documented, some are known but not documented, and some are documented but not terribly well known.

My research focuses on four different quirks in the way that Windows handles file names, and in this post I’ll share some interesting tidbits about one of those quirks – but not how these tidbits can be used in exploitation.

[I leave that up to the reader to figure out, and we can compare notes after you see my presentation! ;) ]

So, if you’ve spent some time working with Windows systems, you know what DOS device files are. For those who don’t, DOS device files are files which don’t actually exist on the filesystem, but can be referenced as if they did and allow for data exchange with certain devices.

Examples include:

-CON, used to interface with standard input and output
-PRN, used to communicate with the first parallel printer connected to the computer
-COM1, used to communicate with the first serial port on the computer
-NUL, a bit bucket like /dev/null

What you probably DIDN’T know is that these technically exist in EVERY directory on the entire machine.

They can be referenced even with an absolute path, so long as everything in the path up to the name of the special file actually exists.

These files can also be accessed by anyone, with standard identical permissions regardless of what directory they reside in, even if that directory is restricted to the user! Also, they can have any file extension and will still refer to devices, so “CON” is the same as “CON.thisIsALongAndArbitraryFileExtension”.

I’m sure that the more advanced readers out there are already scratching their beards, scheming up ways that these funny little quirks could be used, but if you want to see how I’M using them (and hear some amazing security haikus), you’ll just have to wait until Friday at ShmooCon and come see!

And BTW, as winner of the “Gringo Warrior” lock bypass competition at last year’s ShmooCon, I’ll of course be back to defend my title. So if you think you’ve got what it takes to pick some choice locks and abuse an innocent dummy all in a matter of minutes, see you there.

Keep fighting the good fight, info-warriors.

-Dan Crowley, Technical Support Engineer

 

To comment on this blog, please CLICK HERE.

Windows GP Trap Handler Privilege Escalation – Meet CORE IMPACT Pro

January 22nd, 2010

It’s amazing to me how the 17-year-old Windows GP Trap Handler Privilege Escalation bug is back in the news making security n00bs across the land shake in their Florsheim zipper boots.

chp_lock_binaryTo me it’s just shocking to think that such an old vulnerability is still making waves, but, truthfully our initial efforts to gather testing trends information from CORE IMPACT Pro customers (voluntarily and anonymously) has shown us that many companies are still running exploits for such longstanding issues and more importantly, still  finding exploitable instances.     

That’s why on Wednesday afternoon IMPACT Pro customers should have noticed a very nice looking update sitting in their queue.  If you didn’t notice it, you’re late and missing out on all of the fun. The Microsoft Windows GP Trap Handler Privilege Escalation Exploit is now available to IMPACT Pro
customers as a pre-released version… w00t!

And before you roll your eyes and say “well then I’m glad that I don’t run any of those OS’s anymore,” check again, because the affected list keeps growing. The involved issue is believed to be present in EVERY fully-patched version of Windows going all the way back to version 3.1 and stayed put up until Windows 7.

This vulnerability is specifically caused by an error within the GP Trap Handler, which can and will be exploited to execute arbitrary code with….dun dun dun…..KERNEL PRIVILEGES.

Now, we all know Vista is a much tougher platform to exploit to privilege escalation, however, myself and a few of our customers agree, with this type of flaw it makes getting privilege escalation trivial. You can easily give yourself kernel level privileges without setting off a single flag. I noticed that nothing caught it or its’ calls… and we’re talking about testing a pretty hardened system.

The ability to use the assumption of the operating system on how to interpret 16-bit apps is not only elegant, but also very simple. I find it amazing that Microsoft has known about this vulnerability since June of 2009, and has not released a patch as of yet. 

However, the same day Microsoft released their advisory we released our early release exploit.

Naturally, we think that using it and CORE IMPACT Pro to test the vulnerability is the best way to develop proper offensive, as well as defensive, techniques to protect against any related attacks.

Way to go. Way. To. Go.

Stay safe…stay secure…..PEN TEST!

-Caitlin Johanson, Technical Support Engineer

 

To comment on this blog, please CLICK HERE.

Whipped Up Over Operation Aurora

January 20th, 2010

The entire globe, or at least the entire IT security community, has seemingly found itself captivated this week by the recently reported wave of targeted IE zero day attacks carried out against Google and a number of other major firms – a campaign that has been dubbed “Operation Aurora” that many research experts have also identified as emanating out of China.

Like many of the other high-profile attacks that have garnered similar attention in the IT industry and beyond in recent years, the widespread coverage being given to the Aurora campaign seems to be focused on the fact that companies with such deep, established security practices were reportedly infiltrated for a period of months without ever knowing about it or being able to prevent the activity.

aurora-borealisBut the reality is that within the context of the current state of widespread software vulnerabilities and the ability of advanced attackers to isolate those issues and exploit them stealthily, none of this should really come as a surprise to anyone, and most certainly not IT security experts.

Whether or not the Operation Aurora attacks were in fact conceived in China, and the inability of governments and the global law enforcement community to do anything to effectively thwart such action is another extremely important and challenging issue. (I was interviewed about all of these topics in a recent podcast conducted by reporters with the ThreatPost security news service.)

However, the fact that cybercriminals were able to find a previously unreported “zero day” vulnerability in a ubiquitous technology such as IE, and then use that as a means to infiltrate specific organizations, even those with stout security defenses, is truly a non news item at this point. With many such vulnerabilities resident throughout some of the most popular applications used by organizations today – including those reported by our CoreLabs research group – the opportunity for advanced persistent threat campaigns like Aurora to be carried out is constantly present.

And targeted cyber-infiltration against these tech giants further ushers in a new era wherein attacks upon their own products and source code will increase – leading to significant systemic risk to our overall digital ecosystem.

That’s precisely why organizations have to stop sinking so much of their security resources into defensive tools that create barriers certain to eventually be circumvented, or invest all their time into vulnerability management efforts that only guess at which potential exposures may place them at greatest risk of compromise.

Penetration testing offers organizations a powerful alternative through which to understand precisely where they are vulnerable, and what the implications of those weak points may be in direct relation to cutting-edge threats – it’s time to recognize that this is the only way that we can hope to effectively level the playing field.

After known intrusions, organization must have the capability to draw detailed attack graphs that allow them to understand how intruders were able to maintain a persistent presence in their environments and transport across chains of interconnected vulnerabilities and assets in order to bolster their post-breach situational awareness.  

On Jan. 18, Core Security shipped an exploit to all CORE IMPACT Pro customers that enables organizations to ensure that they are not exposed to the widespread attacks currently targeting the IE vulnerability used in Operation Aurora and detailed in Microsoft Security Advisory 979352.     

In a Core-sponsored webcast tomorrow, my colleague Alex Horan will demonstrate specifically how the Aurora exploits worked and how IMPACT Pro allows you to assess your resiliency to such threats.

Patched, un-patched, or anywhere in between, the only way for you to truly be sure that your systems are not vulnerable to these types of attacks is by testing to see if flaws are exploitable in your environment and validate that security defenses are functioning properly, and that remediation efforts including patching have been successful.

The problem of zero day attacks isn’t going away anytime soon. However, those who are best prepared ahead of time will be the organizations capable of enduring in the face of this onslaught.

-Tom Kellermann, VP of Security Awareness

 

To comment on this blog, please CLICK HERE.

A Tale of Lockpicks and Screwdrivers

January 8th, 2010

Last year, I won the “Gringo Warrior” lock picking competition held at the ShmooCon V security research conference.

Many people who know what this competition entails may make the mental jump to say I’d make a pretty good spy if I can pick all those locks. Of course, these tend to be the same people who think that ShmooCon, which bills itself as a hacker conference, ought to be held in a prison!  Let me assure you that I have no intention of becoming a spy for a variety of reasons (and I think I’d make a pretty poor spy anyway), but that’s not what this blog post is about.

No, this blog post is about why a lock picking competition is not really the best judge of who is good at bypassing physical security for espionage reasons, the reasons behind this counter-intuitive statement, and how you can use the knowledge to make your own physical security better!

shmoocon.logoThe other point to take home here is that as a security professional, you NEED, NEED NEED NEED to be able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Be creative, be devious, be thorough. Otherwise you may miss something crucial.

This doesn’t just apply to physical security, either!

Many people tend to focus on authentication as the end-all-be-all of security, but if you keep staring at the locks you miss the screws. As a tech support engineer, I’ve had people ask me: “If I run through the wizards in IMPACT Pro, am I done with my pen test?” The answer is a solid and resounding no. Attack trust relationships, attack users, attack the network, attack the web applications, and anything else that you can think of. The more broad the scope of your testing, the better your results will be.

In my experience, locksport novices will typically take anywhere from 15 minutes to one hour to successfully pick a basic pin tumbler lock. With a few months’ practice on the lock, diligent locksport students can find themselves opening the same lock consistently in under a minute. Part of this is due to the fact that they’re continually picking the same lock. Every lock has its own little quirks and weirdness, some of which are shared with other locks of the same model and some which may be individual to the particular lock and its lifetime.

If a lock is highly worn, it may make the picking process more or less difficult. When a novice then attempts to pick a different lock, they pretty much start over. Initial picking attempts will often take anywhere from 10-40 minutes with a different, basic pin tumbler lock. Moving from padlocks to door-mounted or cabinet-mounted locks or different types of locks will also make for longer time periods.

Why is this important? If you’re a spy and you intend to pick a lock, you need to do it in as little time as possible and you likely won’t have time to spend with that lock learning to pick it quickly. More time means a greater chance of getting caught, and anything longer than 5 minutes is probably going to result in you being discovered, which can be very, very unpleasant for a spy.

So far, however, we have only been looking at trees. Let’s zoom out a bit so we can see the forest. In electronic security, it’s common for people to assume that any and all security problems must be with the authentication mechanism. This is a horribly bad assumption. In physical security, the authentication mechanism is the lock. Truth is, much as with pen testing, although defenders tend to focus on the locks holding up to various bypass techniques, other important attack vectors exist, and are frequently easier and more successful.

Learning the Trade

Let’s consider some examples. You have a door in front of you, and:

…it’s a French door. Problem here is that the old credit card trick always works on French doors, and modifications on that technique can, in almost all scenarios, defeat protection mechanisms designed to prevent shimming (which is exactly what the credit card trick is).

it has a completely wooden frame. A car jack turned sideways can bend the frame outwards and possibly allow shimming attacks to work. Additionally, a sturdy enough and properly placed flathead screwdriver or crowbar can be used to lever the frame away from the door, again enabling shimming attacks.

…the hinges are on the outside. A flathead screwdriver can be quickly used to pop the pins out of most hinges, and even if this is not possible, a crowbar can also be used to pop hinges off the door.

…the lock is affixed using exposed screws. I’ve seen this one more times than I’d care to recount. Sometimes, the screws are special screws, but with a little recon and the right resources, no screw is unscrew-able, and the majority of “security screws” can be unscrewed using screwdriver tips you can buy at your local hardware store.

…there’s an unlocked window which opens to the same room as the door. Really, any alternate method of entering the same room will do, and the problem here lies in the fact that there are really multiple entry points to the room. Furthermore, glass can break, so if the window is at all accessible (even by ladder or grappling hook) it can still be an issue even when locked.

…there’s a constant stream of people going through the door. Piggybacking is easier than lock picking.

…there’s a drop tile ceiling over the wall with the locked door. A small and limber person may be able to get in over the wall and under the ceiling.

…there’s a clear view into the room. Not always a problem, but it certainly can be.

…there’s a request-to-exit motion sensor on the other side of the door. Go grab a balloon, a tube, and a small helium tank. Secure the balloon to one end of the tube. Slide the balloon-on-tube assembly under the door and inflate the balloon through the tube. Give the tube enough slack to trigger the request-to-exit sensor and VOILA!

I could go on for a long time giving examples, but diligent readers may already be running around looking at everything locked in their house or workplace looking for exposed screws and the like. I bet you that if you look, you’ll find something!

When planning and conducting your pen tests, try to approach the issue in a similar manner, just as an attacker would. Incidentally, IMPACT Pro is one possible solution for replicating attacks across multiple vectors.

Now, for some self-promotion: I’ll be presenting some original research I’ve done at ShmooCon VI, so come see my talk, “Windows File Pseudonyms: Strange filenames and haiku”! I guarantee you’ll learn something fun. Plus, if you’re into locksport, you should compete in Gringo Warrior and try to give me a run for my money! ;)

Keep on fighting the good fight, info-warriors.

-Dan Crowley, Technical Support Engineer

To comment on this blog, please CLICK HERE.

Cybergeddon Hype: Needed Fear, or Too Much Loathing?

December 23rd, 2009

In any truly innovative business or development environment (technology, content or otherwise) it’s always crucial to incorporate a diversity of opinions, as I’m firmly of the belief that in many instances the most effective way to find the middle on any topic of debate is to identify people who widely disagree, set them loose on each other, and then start working back to the center.

At least that’s how our family dinners worked growing up as presided over by a lawyer and politician.

cyber_warfareNow, some might argue that the current state of U.S. politics serves as a glaring example of how ineffective this sort of approach to compromise via diametric opposition can be in terms of making progress on any given issue of the day. But, let’s face it, running a country of this size is a pretty complicated affair and while our system is far from perfect, if anything it evidences the characteristics of a process that integrates an extremely wide range of input.

The issue of cyber-war – this growing notion that we are on the cusp of an era in which our electronic and interconnected systems will become a primary aspect of military, terrorist and even economically-oriented attacks (or that they already have) – is also a very complex concept, and as a result there are an immense variety of opinions being expressed as to the current, near-term and eventual risks posed by to this ongoing evolution.

With the Wall St. Journal reporting last week that insurgents in Iraq were found in possession of video intercepted from one of our most cutting-edge and increasingly popular military programs, the use of unmanned fighting machines – in this case drone aircraft, there’s little argument that hacking, surveillance and other electronic tactics have become an even more significant element of intelligence gathering and warfare activities than ever before, and will continue to do so.

But the issue of whether or not attacks aimed directly at, or carried out using our electronic infrastructure itself (for example the SCADA systems used to manage many aspects of our power grid) will soon be used against us as a weapon of disablement and destruction is an area where a wide range of expert predictions are being issued these days as to the likelihood, timing and nature of how such threats might continue to play out over time.

Overlooked vs Overhyped

In another WSJ story that the IT security community followed with great interest in 2009, we were told that U.S. government officials had concrete evidence that foreign attackers (specifically those based out of, or porting their activities through China) had been able to infiltrate the electronic systems used to control much of our power grid for an unspecified, but reportedly substantial period of time.

That’s pretty disturbing for a lot of reasons (consider a military assault that involves disablement of electronic infrastructure ahead of a more traditional physical attacks) and as a result we heard a lot of people espousing the immense risk that the scenario encompasses. At the same time, other pundits pointed out the fact that whether or not there had been a successful infiltration, there was little-to-no apparent proof of any related assault or systems manipulation.

Here at Core Security, we’re lucky enough to have two extremely experienced, opinionated area experts who have slightly different takes on the whole cyber-war/cybergeddon phenomenon.

On the one side, we have Tom Kellermann, our VP of Security Awareness, who works with many of the leading IT security practitioners and strategists in the government and private space, and who is heavily involved in trying to help advocate for the need for everyone to more closely consider the incredible risks already posed by SCADA security, cloud computing, virtualization and just about anything else you can think of. Many of his blog posts on this site detail those views.

On the other side, we have Ivan Arce, our CTO, who has had his hands in the world of hacking, attacks and exploit development for over a decade, and has the chance to hear many insider stories from his peers in the research community, our customers, and our Core pen testing consultants in the field. As noted in his latest CSO blog post, he seems to think that the whole “cybergeddon” craze, as he calls it, has been pretty well overblown.

Cyber-war, cybergeddon or straight up cybercrime, clearly at this point no matter what you call it there’s no immediate end or solution in sight.

But what do you think? Do we simply need to get policy makers thinking about this issue now, before it’s too late, or has the ship already set sail?

-Matt Hines, Chief Blogger

 

To comment on this blog, please CLICK HERE.