Alcatel-Lucent Security Advisory Sa0xx
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Scalable Scanning and Automatic Classification of TLS Padding Oracle Vulnerabilities
Scalable Scanning and Automatic Classification of TLS Padding Oracle Vulnerabilities Robert Merget and Juraj Somorovsky, Ruhr University Bochum; Nimrod Aviram, Tel Aviv University; Craig Young, Tripwire VERT; Janis Fliegenschmidt and Jörg Schwenk, Ruhr University Bochum; Yuval Shavitt, Tel Aviv University https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/merget This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Security Symposium. August 14–16, 2019 • Santa Clara, CA, USA 978-1-939133-06-9 Open access to the Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Security Symposium is sponsored by USENIX. Scalable Scanning and Automatic Classification of TLS Padding Oracle Vulnerabilities Robert Merget1, Juraj Somorovsky1, Nimrod Aviram2, Craig Young3, Janis Fliegenschmidt1, Jörg Schwenk1, and Yuval Shavitt2 1Ruhr University Bochum 2Department of Electrical Engineering, Tel Aviv University 3Tripwire VERT Abstract the encryption key. The attack requires a server that decrypts a message and responds with 1 or 0 based on the message va- The TLS protocol provides encryption, data integrity, and lidity. This behavior essentially provides the attacker with a authentication on the modern Internet. Despite the protocol’s cryptographic oracle which can be used to mount an adaptive importance, currently-deployed TLS versions use obsolete chosen-ciphertext attack. The attacker exploits this behavior cryptographic algorithms which have been broken using var- to decrypt messages by executing adaptive queries.Vaudenay ious attacks. One prominent class of such attacks is CBC exploited a specific form of vulnerable behavior, where im- padding oracle attacks. These attacks allow an adversary to plementations validate the CBC padding structure and re- decrypt TLS traffic by observing different server behaviors spond with 1 or 0 accordingly. -
Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE of CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2
Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2 CONTENTS 4 Introduction 21 Tech Support Scams Go Nuclear, 39 Infographic: A New Zero-Day Vulnerability Spreading Ransomware Discovered Every Week in 2015 5 Executive Summary 22 Malvertising 39 Infographic: A New Zero-Day Vulnerability Discovered Every Week in 2015 8 BIG NUMBERS 23 Cybersecurity Challenges For Website Owners 40 Spear Phishing 10 MOBILE DEVICES & THE 23 Put Your Money Where Your Mouse Is 43 Active Attack Groups in 2015 INTERNET OF THINGS 23 Websites Are Still Vulnerable to Attacks 44 Infographic: Attackers Target Both Large and Small Businesses 10 Smartphones Leading to Malware and Data Breaches and Mobile Devices 23 Moving to Stronger Authentication 45 Profiting from High-Level Corporate Attacks and the Butterfly Effect 10 One Phone Per Person 24 Accelerating to Always-On Encryption 45 Cybersecurity, Cybersabotage, and Coping 11 Cross-Over Threats 24 Reinforced Reassurance with Black Swan Events 11 Android Attacks Become More Stealthy 25 Websites Need to Become Harder to 46 Cybersabotage and 12 How Malicious Video Messages Could Attack the Threat of “Hybrid Warfare” Lead to Stagefright and Stagefright 2.0 25 SSL/TLS and The 46 Small Business and the Dirty Linen Attack Industry’s Response 13 Android Users under Fire with Phishing 47 Industrial Control Systems and Ransomware 25 The Evolution of Encryption Vulnerable to Attacks 13 Apple iOS Users Now More at Risk than 25 Strength in Numbers 47 Obscurity is No Defense -
Technical Report RHUL–ISG–2019–1 27 March 2019
20 years of Bleichenbacher attacks Gage Boyle Technical Report RHUL–ISG–2019–1 27 March 2019 Information Security Group Royal Holloway University of London Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX United Kingdom Student Number: 100866673 Gage, Boyle 20 Years of Bleichenbacher Attacks Supervisor: Kenny Paterson Submitted as part of the requirements for the award of the MSc in Information Security at Royal Holloway, University of London. I declare that this assignment is all my own work and that I have acknowledged all quotations from published or unpublished work of other people. I also declare that I have read the statements on plagiarism in Section 1 of the Regulations Governing Examination and Assessment Offences, and in accordance with these regulations I submit this project report as my own work. Signature: Date: Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my project supervisor, Kenny Paterson. This project would not have been possible without his continuous encouragement to push the boundaries of my knowledge, and I am grateful for the commitment and expertise that he has provided throughout. Secondly, I would like to thank Nimrod Aviram for his invaluable advice, particularly with respect to algorithm implementation and understanding the finer details of this project. Further thanks should go to Raja Naeem Akram, Oliver Kunz and David Morrison for taking the time to teach me Python and how to run my source code on an Ubuntu server. I am grateful for the time that David Stranack, Thomas Bingham and James Boyle have spent proof reading this project, and for the continuous support from my part- ner, Lisa Moxham. -
Combat Top Security Vulnerabilities: HPE Tippingpoint Intrusion
Business white paper Combat top security vulnerabilities HPE TippingPoint intrusion prevention system Business white paper Page 2 The year 2014 marked a new pinnacle for hackers. Vulnerabilities were uncovered in some of the most widely deployed software in the world—some of it in systems actually intended to make you more secure. HPE TippingPoint next-generation intrusion prevention system (IPS) and next-generation firewall (NGFW) customers rely on us to keep their networks safe. And when it comes to cyber threats, every second matters. So how did HPE TippingPoint do? This brief highlights the top security vulnerabilities of 2014—the ones that sent corporate security executives scrambling to protect their businesses. And it describes how HPE TippingPoint responded to keep our customers safe. Heartbleed—HPE TippingPoint intrusion prevention system stops blood flow early Any vulnerability is concerning, but when a vulnerability is discovered in software designed to assure security, it leaves businesses exposed and vulnerable. That was the case with the Heartbleed vulnerability disclosed by the OpenSSL project on April 7, 2014. They found the vulnerability in versions of OpenSSL—the open-source cryptographic library widely used to encrypt Internet traffic. Heartbleed grew from a coding error that allowed remote attackers to read information from process memory by sending heartbeat packets that trigger a buffer over-read. As a demonstration of the vulnerability, the OpenSSL Project created a sample exploit that successfully stole private cryptography keys, user names and passwords, instant messages, emails, and business-critical documents and communications. We responded within hours to protect TippingPoint customers. On April 8, we released a custom filter package to defend against the vulnerability. -
![Arxiv:1911.09312V2 [Cs.CR] 12 Dec 2019](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/5245/arxiv-1911-09312v2-cs-cr-12-dec-2019-485245.webp)
Arxiv:1911.09312V2 [Cs.CR] 12 Dec 2019
Revisiting and Evaluating Software Side-channel Vulnerabilities and Countermeasures in Cryptographic Applications Tianwei Zhang Jun Jiang Yinqian Zhang Nanyang Technological University Two Sigma Investments, LP The Ohio State University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—We systematize software side-channel attacks with three questions: (1) What are the common and distinct a focus on vulnerabilities and countermeasures in the cryp- features of various vulnerabilities? (2) What are common tographic implementations. Particularly, we survey past re- mitigation strategies? (3) What is the status quo of cryp- search literature to categorize vulnerable implementations, tographic applications regarding side-channel vulnerabili- and identify common strategies to eliminate them. We then ties? Past work only surveyed attack techniques and media evaluate popular libraries and applications, quantitatively [20–31], without offering unified summaries for software measuring and comparing the vulnerability severity, re- vulnerabilities and countermeasures that are more useful. sponse time and coverage. Based on these characterizations This paper provides a comprehensive characterization and evaluations, we offer some insights for side-channel of side-channel vulnerabilities and countermeasures, as researchers, cryptographic software developers and users. well as evaluations of cryptographic applications related We hope our study can inspire the side-channel research to side-channel attacks. We present this study in three di- community to discover new vulnerabilities, and more im- rections. (1) Systematization of literature: we characterize portantly, to fortify applications against them. the vulnerabilities from past work with regard to the im- plementations; for each vulnerability, we describe the root cause and the technique required to launch a successful 1. -
IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Quarterly, 1Q 2015
IBM Security Systems March 2015 IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Quarterly, 1Q 2015 Explore the latest security trends—from “designer vulns” to mutations in malware— based on 2014 year-end data and ongoing research 2 IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Quarterly 1Q 2015 Contents Executive overview 2 Executive overview When we look back in history to review and understand the past year, you can be assured it will be remembered as a year of 4 Roundup of security incidents in 2014 significant change. 11 Citadel, the financial malware that continues to adapt In early January 2014, companies large and small scrambled to Are mobile application developers for Android putting their 14 better understand and analyze a major retail breach that left users at risk? them asking whether or not their own security measures would 17 Shaking the foundation: Vulnerability disclosures in 2014 survive the next storm. Before spring was barely in motion, we had our first taste of the “designer vuln”—a critical 21 About X-Force vulnerability that not only proved lethal for targeted attacks, 22 Contributors but also had a cleverly branded logo, website and call-name (or handle) that would forever identify the disclosure. 22 For more information 23 Footnotes These designer vulns appeared within long-held foundational frameworks used by the majority of websites, and they continued throughout 2014, garnering catchy name after catchy name—Heartbleed, Shellshock, POODLE, and into 2015, Ghost and FREAK. This in and of itself raises the question of what it takes for a vulnerability to merit a marketing push, PR and logo design, while the other thousands discovered throughout the year do not. -
TLS Attacks & DNS Security
IAIK TLS Attacks & DNS Security Information Security 2019 Johannes Feichtner [email protected] IAIK Outline TCP / IP Model ● Browser Issues Application SSLStrip Transport MITM Attack revisited Network Link layer ● PKI Attacks (Ethernet, WLAN, LTE…) Weaknesses HTTP TLS / SSL FLAME FTP DNS Telnet SSH ● Implementation Attacks ... ● Protocol Attacks ● DNS Security IAIK Review: TLS Services All applications running TLS are provided with three essential services Authentication HTTPS FTPS Verify identity of client and server SMTPS ... Data Integrity Detect message tampering and forgery, TLS e.g. malicious Man-in-the-middle TCP IP Encryption Ensure privacy of exchanged communication Note: Technically, not all services are required to be used Can raise risk for security issues! IAIK Review: TLS Handshake RFC 5246 = Establish parameters for cryptographically secure data channel Full handshake Client Server scenario! Optional: ClientHello 1 Only with ServerHello Client TLS! Certificate 2 ServerKeyExchange Certificate CertificateRequest ClientKeyExchange ServerHelloDone CertificateVerify 3 ChangeCipherSpec Finished ChangeCipherSpec 4 Finished Application Data Application Data IAIK Review: Certificates Source: http://goo.gl/4qYsPz ● Certificate Authority (CA) = Third party, trusted by both the subject (owner) of the certificate and the party (site) relying upon the certificate ● Browsers ship with set of > 130 trust stores (root CAs) IAIK Browser Issues Overview Focus: Relationship between TLS and HTTP Problem? ● Attacker wants to access encrypted data ● Browsers also have to deal with legacy websites Enforcing max. security level would „break“ connectivity to many sites Attack Vectors ● SSLStrip ● MITM Attack …and somehow related: Cookie Stealing due to absent „Secure“ flag… IAIK Review: ARP Poisoning How? Attacker a) Join WLAN, ● Sniff data start ARP Poisoning ● Manipulate data b) Create own AP ● Attack HTTPS connections E.g. -
Yet Another Padding Oracle in Openssl CBC Ciphersuites
Yet Another Padding Oracle in OpenSSL CBC Ciphersuites presented by Raphael Finkel based on https://blog.cloudflare.com/ yet-another-padding-oracle-in-openssl-cbc-ciphersuites/ Keeping Current, September 5, 2018 The Cryptographic Doom Principle I reference: https://moxie.org/blog/ the-cryptographic-doom-principle/ by Moxie Marlinspike I If you have to perform any cryptographic operation before verifying the MAC (message authentication code) on a message you’ve received, it will somehow inevitably lead to doom. I MAC is a cryptographic digest based on a secret key shared by Alice and Bob. I Proper use of MAC: Encrypt Then Authenticate (Encrypt-then-MAC, EtA; used in IPsec) I Alice sends to Bob: E(P) || MAC(E(P)) I Detail: E(P) also includes such information as the initialization vector and the encryption algorithm; both are then covered by MAC(). I Bob first verifies MAC(E(P)), satisfying the principle. If that test passes, Bob decrypts P. I Good: Verifies integrity of E(P), therefore it also verifies integrity of P. I Good: MAC(E(P)) provides no information about P. Authenticate and encrypt (Encrypt-and-MAC, E&A; used in SSH) I Alice sends to Bob: E(P) || MAC(P) I Bob must first decrypt E(P) to get P, then confirm MAC(P), violating the principle. I Good: verifies integrity of P. I Not good: I May theoretically reveal information about P in MAC(P). I No integrity check on E(P). I Bad: vulnerable to chosen-ciphertext attacks on E. I Man-in-the-middle Morton can try various versions of E(P), noting whether Bob gets as far as trying to verify MAC(P). -
The Software Vulnerability Ecosystem: Software Development in the Context of Adversarial Behavior
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2016 The Software Vulnerability Ecosystem: Software Development In The Context Of Adversarial Behavior Saender Aren Clark University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Databases and Information Systems Commons, and the Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Clark, Saender Aren, "The Software Vulnerability Ecosystem: Software Development In The Context Of Adversarial Behavior" (2016). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2233. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2233 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2233 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Software Vulnerability Ecosystem: Software Development In The Context Of Adversarial Behavior Abstract Software vulnerabilities are the root cause of many computer system security fail- ures. This dissertation addresses software vulnerabilities in the context of a software lifecycle, with a particular focus on three stages: (1) improving software quality dur- ing development; (2) pre- release bug discovery and repair; and (3) revising software as vulnerabilities are found. The question I pose regarding software quality during development is whether long-standing software engineering principles and practices such as code reuse help or hurt with respect to vulnerabilities. Using a novel data-driven analysis of large databases of vulnerabilities, I show the surprising result that software quality and software security are distinct. Most notably, the analysis uncovered a counterintu- itive phenomenon, namely that newly introduced software enjoys a period with no vulnerability discoveries, and further that this “Honeymoon Effect” (a term I coined) is well-explained by the unfamiliarity of the code to malicious actors. -
Exploit Kits, Which Seemed Nearly Dormant Last Year Following the Demise of Illicit Cryptocurrency Mining, the Hot New Thing in 2018, Appear to Be Making a Comeback
2020 TRUSTWAVE GLOBAL SECURITY REPORT Table of Contents Introduction ........................ 3 Threat Intelligence .................22 Email Threats ......................... 23 Executive Summary ................. 4 Extortion Scams ....................... 25 Data Compromises ..................... 4 Archive Mutant Tricks .................. 28 Email Threats .......................... 6 Multi-Stage Phishing Using Web Attacks ........................... 8 Trusted Cloud Providers ................ 29 Exploits ............................... 8 Office 365 Account Phishing ............30 Malware ............................... 9 Emotet: The Threat is in the Mail ......... 33 Database and Network Security ......... 10 Web Attacks .......................... 36 Database Compromise ...............11 Humans: The Lowest Hanging Fruit ....... 38 Compromise Demographics ..............11 Exploits .............................. 39 Compromises Per Environment ...........14 Finding Insights Through Trustwave Fusion ......................44 Environments Compromised by Industry ............................15 Malware ..............................46 Compromises by Region .................17 More and More Magecart ...............50 Compromise Duration ...................18 The State of Security ............... 51 Methods of Compromise .................19 Data Security ......................... 52 Sources of Detection ...................20 Network Security ...................... 56 Contributors ....................... 59 2 Introduction Welcome to the 2020 Trustwave -
Olson's Standard Poodles
Sun-Golden Kennels STANDARD POODLE PUPPY PURCHASE AGREEMENT LIMITED REGISTRATION BREEDER/Seller: Mike or Sharon Long 7812 N. Longview Ct. Edgerton, WI. 53534 608-884-4000 [email protected] www.sungoldenkennels.com Definitions used herein include: "BUYER" shall herein be define as: ___________________________ BREEDER" or “SELLER” Shall herein be defined as: Mike or Sharon Long "PUPPY" shall herein be defined as “A PUPPY”, registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC) with the registered name of: SHARMIK’S________________________________ AKC Litter registration # PRXXXXXX Sire: AKC #PRXXXXXX Reg Name ____________________________________ Dam: AKC# PRXXXXXX Reg Name ___________________________________ The Sun-Golden Standard Poodle described above is sold for the sum of $1000.00 Payment to be made in full with cash or visa/mc. A pet puppy is defined here to be a Standard Poodle puppy which is in good health at the time of sale, and embodies the characteristics of the Standard Poodle breed. This puppy is purebred and the litter has been (registered) with the American Kennel Club. The Parents of this Puppy have had OFA x-rays to establish that they are free of Hip Dysplasia, Elbow disease, Heart disease and Eye disease The puppy is registered with a limited registration, which will prohibit breeding and registering offspring. The BUYER agrees this PUPPY is to be spayed/neutered at the appropriate age of (9-12 months) allowing for some sexual maturity of the pup which is necessary for their development. Veterinarian confirmation of this procedure must be supplied to the BREEDER by the time the pup is 1year of age or the contract is null and void. -
Lucky 13, BEAST, CRIME,... Is TLS Dead, Or Just Resting?
Lucky 13, BEAST, CRIME,... Is TLS dead, or just resting? Kenny Paterson Information Security Group Overview Introduction to TLS (and why YOU should care) BEAST and CRIME Lucky 13 and RC4 attacks Current/future developments in TLS 2 About the Speaker Academic But spent 5 years in industrial research lab Still involved in IPR, consulting, industry liaison RHUL since 2001 “You are teaching Network Security” Leading to research into how crypto is used in Network Security EPSRC Leadership Fellow, 2010-2015 “Cryptography: Bridging Theory and Practice” Support from I4, HP, BT, Mastercard, CPNI Attacks on IPsec (2006, 2007), SSH (2009) So what about TLS? 3 A Word from my Sponsors 4 TLS – And Why You Should Care SSL = Secure Sockets Layer. Developed by Netscape in mid 1990s. SSLv2 now deprecated; SSLv3 still widely supported. TLS = Transport Layer Security. IETF-standardised version of SSL. TLS 1.0 = SSLv3 with minor tweaks, RFC 2246 (1999). TLS 1.1 = TLS 1.0 + tweaks, RFC 4346 (2006). TLS 1.2 = TLS 1.1 + more tweaks, RFC 5246 (2008). TLS 1.3? 5 TLS – And Why You Should Care Originally for secure e-commerce, now used much more widely. Retail customer access to online banking facilities. User access to gmail, facebook, Yahoo. Mobile applications, including banking apps. Payment infrastructures. User-to-cloud. Post Snowden: back-end operations for google, yahoo, … Not yet Yahoo webcam traffic, sadly. TLS has become the de facto secure protocol of choice. Used by hundreds of millions of people and devices every day. A serious attack could be catastrophic, both in real terms and in terms of perception/confidence.