Earlier today, Chris Betz, senior director of the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC), posted a blog calling for “better coordinated vulnerability disclosure“.
Before I begin a rebuttal of sorts, let me be absolutely clear. The entire OSVDB team is very impressed with Microsoft’s transition over the last decade as far as security response goes. The MSRC has evolved and matured greatly, which is a benefit to both Microsoft and their customers world-wide. This post is not meant to undermine their efforts at large, rather to point out that since day one, propaganda is still a valuable tool for the company. I will preface this with a reminder that this is not a new issue. I have personally blogged about this as far back as 2001, after Scott Culp (Microsoft at the time) wrote a polarizing piece about “information anarchy” that centered around disclosure issues. At some point Microsoft realized this was a bad position to take and that it didn’t endear them to the researchers providing free vulnerability information to them. Despite that, it took almost ten years for Microsoft to drop the term “responsible” disclosure (also biased against researchers) in favor of “coordinated” disclosure. Again, Microsoft has done a phenomenal job advancing their security program, especially the last three to five years. But… it is on the back of a confrontational policy toward researchers.
Reading yesterday’s blog, there are bits and pieces that stand out to me for various reasons. It is easy to gloss over many of these if you aren’t a masochist and spend most of your waking time buried in vulnerability aggregation and related topics.
In terms of the software industry at large and each player’s responsibility, we believe in Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD).
Not sure I have seen “CVD” as a formal initialism until now, which is interesting. After trying to brand “information anarchy” and pushing the “responsible disclosure” term, good to see you embrace a better term.
Ultimately, vulnerability collaboration between researchers and vendors is about limiting the field of opportunity so customers and their data are better protected against cyberattacks.
And this line, early on in the blog, demonstrates you do not live in the real world of vulnerability disclosure. Microsoft has enjoyed their ‘ivory’ tower so to speak. Many researchers find and disclose vulnerabilities for entirely selfish reasons (e.g. bug bounties), which you basically do not offer. Yes, you have a bounty program, but it is very different from most and does not reward a vast majority of vulnerabilities reported to you. Microsoft has done well in creating a culture of “report vulnerabilities to us for free for the honor of being mentioned in one of our advisories”. And I get that! Being listed as a creditee in a Microsoft advisory is advertising itself as far as researcher talent. However… you are talking about a minority of researchers in the greater picture, that chase that honor.
Those in favor of full, public disclosure believe that this method pushes software vendors to fix vulnerabilities more quickly and makes customers develop and take actions to protect themselves. We disagree.
Oh sorry, let me qualify, your black and white tower. This absolutely does work for some vendors, especially those who have a poor history in dealing with vulnerability reports. You may not be one of them for the last 10 years, but you once were. Back in the late ’90s, Microsoft had a reputation for being horrible when dealing with researchers. No vulnerability disclosure policy, no bug bounty (even five years after Netscape had implemented one), and no standard process for receiving and addressing reports. Yes, you have a formal and mature process now, but many of us in the industry remember your beginnings.
It is necessary to fully assess the potential vulnerability, design and evaluate against the broader threat landscape, and issue a “fix” before it is disclosed to the public, including those who would use the vulnerability to orchestrate an attack.
This is a great point. But, let’s read on and offer some context using your own words…
Of the vulnerabilities privately disclosed through coordinated disclosure practices and fixed each year by all software vendors, we have found that almost none are exploited before a “fix” has been provided to customers, and even after a “fix” is made publicly available only a very small amount are ever exploited.
Wait, if only a very small amount of vulnerabilities are exploited after a fix, and ‘almost none’ are exploited before a fix… why do you care if it is coordinated? You essentially invalidate any argument for a researcher coordinating disclosure with you. Why do they care if you clearly state that coordination doesn’t matter, and that the vulnerability will “almost [never]” be exploited? You can’t have this both ways.
CVD philosophy and action is playing out today as one company – Google – has released information about a vulnerability in a Microsoft product, two days before our planned fix on our well known and coordinated Patch Tuesday cadence, despite our request that they avoid doing so.
And this is where you move from propaganda to an outright lie. The issue in question was disclosed on December 29, 2014. That is 15 days, not two days, before your January patch Tuesday. I’d love to hold my breath waiting for MSRC or Betz to explain this minor ’rounding error’ on dates, but I have a feeling I would come out on the losing side. Or is Microsoft simply not aware of public vulnerability disclosures and should perhaps invest in a solution for such vulnerability intelligence? Yes, blatant sales opportunity, but they are desperately begging for it given this statement. =)
[Update. Apparently Microsoft is unhappy over Issue 123 which was auto-published on January 11, as opposed to Issue 118 linked above auto-published on December 29. So they are correct on two days, but curious they aren’t complaining over 118 at the same time when both are local privilege escalation vulnerabilities.]
One could also argue that this is a local privilege escalation vulnerability, which requires a level of access to exploit that simply does not apply to a majority of Windows users. Betz goes on to say that software is complicated (it is), and that not every vulnerability is equal (also true), but also glosses over the fact that Google is in the same boat they are. A little over four years ago, the Google security team posted a blog talking about “rebooting” responsible disclosure and say this:
As software engineers, we understand the pain of trying to fix, test and release a product rapidly; this especially applies to widely-deployed and complicated client software. Recognizing this, we put a lot of effort into keeping our release processes agile so that security fixes can be pushed out to users as quickly as possible.
To be fair, Google also did not publish a timeline of any sorts with this disclosure. We don’t know anything that happened after the September 30, 2014 report to Microsoft. Did you ask for more time Google? Did Microsoft say it was being patched in January? If so, you look like total assholes, disclosure policy be damned. If they didn’t mentioned January specifically and only asked for more time, maybe it was fair you kept to your schedule. One of the two parties should publish all of the correspondence now. What’s the harm, the issue is public! Come on.. someone show their cards, prove the other wrong. Back to Microsoft’s blog…
What’s right for Google is not always right for customers.
This is absolutely true. But you forgot the important qualifier; what is is right for Microsoft, is not always right for customers.
For example, look at CVE-2010-3889 (heavily referenced) aka “Microsoft Windows on 32-bit win32k.sys Keyboard Layout Loading Local Privilege Escalation”. This is one of four vulnerabilities used by Stuxnet. Unfortunately, Microsoft has no clear answer if this is even patched, four years later. That CVE identifier doesn’t seem to exist in any Microsoft security advisory. Why not? Did you really let a vulnerability that may have aided an attack on an Iranian nuclear power plant go unpatched? Think of the ethics questions there! Or is this a case of the Microsoft security response process not being as mature as I give them credit, and this is a dupe of CVE-2010-2743? Why does it take a third-party four years to figure this out while writing a blog on a whim?
It is a zero sum game where all parties end up injured.
What does this even mean, other than propaganda? It is rarely, if ever, a case where “all parties” are injured. If a researcher discloses something to you and publishes prematurely, or publishes on their own without contacting you, usually that party is not ‘injured’ in doing so. That is simple fact.
Betz’ blog goes on to quote the Microsoft CVD policy which states:
Microsoft’s Approach to Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure
Under the principle of Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure, finders disclose newly discovered vulnerabilities in hardware, software, and services directly to the vendors of the affected product; to a national CERT or other coordinator who will report to the vendor privately; or to a private service that will likewise report to the vendor privately.
Perhaps you should qualify that statement, as US-CERT has a 45 day disclosure policy in most cases. That is half the time Google gave you. Quoting from the US-CERT policy:
Q: Will all vulnerabilities be disclosed within 45 days?
A: No. There may often be circumstances that will cause us to adjust our publication schedule. Threats that are especially serious or for which we have evidence of exploitation will likely cause us to shorten our release schedule. Threats that require “hard” changes (changes to standards, changes to core operating system components) will cause us to extend our publication schedule. We may not publish every vulnerability that is reported to us.
Note that it does not qualify “the vendor asks for more time”. That is the United States government saying a vendor gets 45 days to patch with rare exception. Oh wait Mr. Betz, before you go quoting “changes to core operating system components”, I will stop you there. Vulnerabilities in win32k.sys are not new. That 3.1 meg binary (on Windows 7) is the cause for a lot of grief for Windows users in that file alone. Given that history, you cannot say that changes to that file meet the US-CERT criteria.
Finally, this isn’t the first pissing match between Google and Microsoft on vulnerability disclosure. While Microsoft has routinely played the victim card and Google certainly seems more aggressive on their disclosure policy, there is a more than one bit of irony if one looks deeper. In random order…
Microsoft disclosed a vulnerability in Google Chrome, but didn’t do proper research. This vulnerability may be in WebKit as one person notes, meaning it could affect other browsers like Apple Safari. If it does, then Apple would get blindsided in this disclosure, and it would not be ‘coordinated’ or ‘responsible’, and would qualify as ‘information anarchy’ as Microsoft once called it. While we don’t know if it was ultimately in WebKit, we do know this vulnerability exists because Google Chrome was trying to work around issues with Microsoft software.
Look at MSVR11-011 and MSVR11-012 from 2011, where Microsoft “coordinated” two vulnerabilities with the FFmpeg team. To be sure, the FFmpeg team is outstanding at responding to and fixing vulnerabilities. However, in the real world, there are thousands of vendors that use FFmpeg as a library in their own products. While it may have been fixed in the base code, it can easily take somewhere between months and a decade for vendors to learn about and upgrade the library in their software. Only in a completely naive world could Microsoft call this “coordinated”.
Even better, let’s go back to the inaugural Microsoft Vulnerability Research (MSVR) advisory, MSVR11-001. This was a “Use-After-Free Object Lifetime Vulnerability in Chrome” that in reality was a vulnerability in WebKit, the underlying rendering library used by Chrome. The problem is that WebKit is used by a lot more than Chrome. So the first advisory from MSVR conveniently targets a Google product, but completely botches the “coordinated” disclosure, going to a single vendor using WebKit code, because the Microsoft researchers apparently didn’t diagnose the problem fully. No big deal right?
Wrong. I am sure Adobe, Samsung, Amazon, Tizen, Symbian, BlackBerry, Midori, and Android web browser users would disagree strongly. Do you really want to compare the number of users you blindsided with this “coordinated” disclosure to the ones you protected? Microsoft was a bigger jackass on this disclosure than Google ever was, plain and simple.
Finally, do I even need to go into the absolute mess than you call the “Advanced Notification Service” (ANS)? In case readers aren’t aware, this is not a single program. This is several different programs with various names like MAPP and others. Just three days ago, you Mr. Betz announced that ANS was changing. This is after another program got changed drastically, multiple companies were kicked out of the MAPP program, and who knows what else happened. All of which was founded on Microsoft giving advanced and sometimes detailed vulnerability information to questionable companies, that may not be friendly parties.
The entire notion of “coordinated” disclosure went out the window as far as Microsoft goes, when they first implemented these programs. You specifically gave a very limited number of organizations details about vulnerabilities, before other customers had access. That, by definition, is not coordination. That is favoritism in the name of the bottom line, and speaks strongly against any intent you outline in yesterday’s blog post.
While Microsoft has taken great effort to improve their security process, it is disingenuous to call this anything but propaganda.
Based on a Twitter thread started by Aaron Portnoy that was replied to by @4Dgifts asking why people would debunk vulnerability reports, I offer this quick high-level summary of what we see, and how we handle it.
Note that OSVDB uses an extensive classification system (that is very close to being overhauled greatly for more clarity and granularity), in addition to CVSS scoring. Part of our classification system allows us to flag an entry as ‘not-a-vuln’ or ‘myth/fake’. I’d like to briefly explain the different, but also in the bigger picture. When we process vulnerability reports, we only have time to go through the information disclosed usually. In some cases we will spend extra time validating or debunking the issue, as well as digging up information the researcher left out such as vendor URL, affected version, script name, parameter name, etc. That leads to the high-level types of disclosures:
- Invalid / Not Enough – We are seeing cases where a disclosure doesn’t have enough actionable information. There is no vendor URL, the stated product name doesn’t come up on various Google searches, the proof-of-concept (PoC) provided is only for one live site, etc. If we can’t replicate it or dig up the vendor in five minutes, we have to move on.
- Site-specific – Some of the disclosures from above end up being specific to one web site. In a few rare cases, they impact several web sites due to the companies all using the same web hosting / design shop that re-uses templates. Site-specific does not qualify for inclusion in any of the big vulnerability databases (e.g. CVE, BID, Secunia, X-Force, OSVDB). We aggregate vulnerabilities in software and hardware that is available to multiple consumers, on their premises. That means that big offerings like Dropbox or Amazon or Facebook don’t get included either. OSF maintains a separate project that documents site-specific issues.
- Vulnerability – There is enough actionable information to consider it valid, and nothing that sets off warnings that it may be an issue. This is the run-of-the-mill event we deal with in large volumes.
- Not a Vulnerability – While a valid report, the described issue is just considered a bug of some kind. The most common example is a context-dependent ‘DoS’ that simply crashes the software, such as media player or browser. The issue was reported to crash the software, so that is valid. But in ‘exploiting’ the issue, the attacker has gained nothing. They have not crossed privilege boundaries, as the issue can quickly be recovered from. Note that if the issue is a persistent DoS condition, that becomes a valid issue.
- Myth/Fake – This was originally created to handle rumors of older vulnerabilities that simply were not true. “Do you remember that remote Solaris 2.5 bug in squirreld??” Since then, we have started using this classification more to denote when a described issue is simply invalid. For example, the researcher claims code execution and provides a PoC that only shows a DoS. Subsequent analysis shows that it is not exploitable.
Before you start sending emails, as @4DGifts reminds us, you can rarely say with 100% assurance that something isn’t exploitable. We understand and agree with that completely. But it is also not our job to prove a negative. If a researcher is claiming code execution, then they must provide the evidence to back their claim. Either an additional PoC that is more than a stability crash, or fully explain the conditions required to exploit it. Often times when a researcher does this, we see that while it is an issue of some sort, it may not cross privilege boundaries. “So you need admin privs to exploit this…” and “If you get a user to type in that shell code into a prompt on local software, it executes code…” Sure, but that doesn’t cross privilege boundaries.
That is why we encourage people like Aaron to help debunk invalid vulnerability reports. We’re all about accuracy, and we simply don’t have time to test and figure out every vulnerability disclosed. If it is a valid issue but requires dancing with a chicken at midnight, we want that caveat in our entry. If it is a code execution issue, but only with the same privileges as the attacker exploiting it, we want to properly label that too. We do not use CVSS to score bogus reports as valid. Instead, we reflect that they do not impact confidentiality, integrity, or availability which gives it a 0.0 score.
After John Cartwright abruptly announced the closure of the Full Disclosure mail list, there was a lot of speculation as to why. I mailed John Cartwright the day after and asked some general questions. In so many words he indicated it was essentially the emotional wear and tear of running the list. While he did not name anyone specifically, the two biggest names being speculated were ‘NetDev’ due to years of being a headache, and the more recent thread started by Nicholas Lemonias. Through other channels, not via Cartwright, I obtained a copy of a legal threat made against at least one hosting provider for having copies of the mails he sent. This mail was no doubt sent to Cartwright among others. As such, I believe this is the “straw that broke the camels back” so to speak. A copy of that mail can be found at the bottom of this post and it should be a stark lesson that disclosure mail list admins are not only facing threats from vendors trying to stifle research, but now security researchers. This includes researchers who openly post to a list, have a full discussion about the issue, desperately attempt to defend their research, and then change their mind and want to erase it all from public record.
As I previously noted, relying on Twitter and Pastebin dumps are not a reliable alternative to a mail list. Others agree with me including Gordon Lyon, the maintainer of seclists.org and author of Nmap. He has launched a replacement Full Disclosure list to pick up the torch. Note that if you were previously subscribed, the list users were not transferred. You will need to subscribe to the new list if you want to continue participating. The new list will be lightly moderated by a small team of volunteers. The community owes great thanks to both John and now Gordon for their service in helping to ensure that researchers have an outlet to disclose. Remember, it is a mail list on the surface; behind the scenes, they deal with an incredible number of trolls, headache, and legal threats. Until you run a list or service like this, you won’t know how emotionally draining it is.
Note: The following mail was voluntarily shared with me and I was granted permission to publish it by a receiving party. It is entirely within my legal right to post this mail.
From: Nicholas Lemonias. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:11 PM
Subject: Abuse from $ISP hosts
I am writing you to launch an official complaint relating to Data
Protection Directives / and Data Protection Act (UK).
Therefore my request relates to the retention of personal and confidential
information by websites hosted by Secunia.
These same information are also shared by UK local and governmental
authorities and financial institutions, and thus there are growing
concerns of misuse of such information.
Consequently we would like to request that you please delete ALL records
containing our personal information (names, emails, etc..) in whole, from
your hosted websites (seclists.org) and that distribution of our
information is ceased . We have mistakenly posted to the site, and however
reserve the creation rights to that thread, and also reserve the right to
have all personal information deleted, and ceased from any electronic
dissemination, use either partially or in full.
I hope that the issue is resolved urgently without the involvement of local
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thanks in advance,
Update 7:30P EST: Andrew Wallace (aka NetDev) has released a brief statement regarding Full Disclosure. Further, Nicholas Lemonias has threatened me in various ways in a set of emails, all public now.
This morning I woke to the news that the Full-Disclosure mail list was closing its doors. Assuming this is not a hoax (dangerously close to April 1st) and not spoofed mail that somehow got through, there seems to be perspective missing on the importance of this event. Via Facebook posts and Twitter I see casual disappointment, insults that the list was low signal to noise, and that many had stopped reading it a while back. I don’t begrudge the last comment one bit. The list has certainly had its share of noise, but that is the price we pay as a community and industry for having a better source for vulnerability disclosure. Speaking to the point of mail lists specifically, there were three lists that facilitated this: Bugtraq, Full-Disclosure, and Open Source Security (OSS). Bugtraq has been around the longest and is the only alternative to Full-Disclosure really (remember that VulnWatch didn’t last, and was ultimately low traffic). OSS is a list that caters to open source software and does not traffic in commercial software. A majority of the posts come from open source vendors (e.g. Linux distributions), the software’s maintainer, etc. It is used as much for disclosure as coordination between vendors and getting a CVE assigned.
One of the first things that should be said is a sincere “thank you” to John Cartwright for running the list so long. For those of you who have not moderated a list, especially a high-traffic list, it is no picnic. The amount of spam alone makes list moderation a pain in the ass. Add to that the fake exploits, discussions that devolve into insults, and topics that are on the fringe of the list’s purpose. Trying to sort out which should be allowed becomes more difficult than you would think. More importantly, he has done it in a timely manner for so long. Read the bold part again, because that is absolutely critical here. When vulnerability information goes out, it is important that it goes out to everyone equally. Many mails sent to Bugtraq and Full-Disclosure are also sent to other parties at the same time. For example, every day we get up to a dozen mails to the OSVDB Moderators with new vulnerability information, and those lists and other sources (e.g. Exploit-DB, OffSec, 1337day) are in the CC. If you use one or a few of those places as your primary source for vulnerability intelligence, you want that information as fast as anyone else. A mail sent on Friday afternoon may hit just one of them, before appearing two days later on the rest. This is due to the sites being run with varying frequency, work schedules, and dedication. Cartwright’s quick moderation made sure those mails went out quickly, often at all hours of the day and over weekends.
While many vulnerability disclosers will send to multiple sources, you cannot assume that every disclosure will hit every source. Some of these sites specialize in a type of vulnerability (e.g. web-based), while some accept most but ignore a subset (e.g. some of the more academic disclosures). Further, not every discloser sends to all these sources. Many will send to a single mail list (e.g. Bugtraq or FD), or to both of them. This is where the problem arises. For many of the people still posting to the two big disclosure lists, they are losing out on the list that was basically guaranteed to post their work. Make no mistake, that isn’t the case for both lists.
This goes back to why Full-Disclosure was created in the first place (July 11, 2002). This was days before Symantec announced they were acquiring SecurityFocus (July 17, 2002). That was not a coincidence. While I can’t put a finger on when BugTraq changed for the worse exactly, I can assure you it has. Back in 2003, security researchers were noticing curious delays in their information being posted. One company challenged SecurityFocus/Bugtraq publicly, forcing them to defend themselves.
“The problem with SecurityFocus is not that they moderate the lists, but the fact that they deliberately delay and partially censor the information,” said Thomas Kristensen, CTO of Secunia, based in Copenhagen, Denmark. “Since they were acquired by Symantec they changed their policy regarding BugTraq. Before they used to post everything to everybody at the same time. Now they protect the interests of Symantec, delay information and inform their customers in advance.” Wong says there is no truth to these accusations. “The early warnings that our DeepSight customers get come from places like BugTraq and events and incidents that we monitor,” Wong said. “We dont give those alerts [from BugTraq] to our customers any sooner than anyone else gets them.”
Unfortunately for our community, Mr. Wong is absolutely incorrect. I have witnessed this behavior first hand several times over the years, as have others. From a series of mails in 2006:
* mudge (mudge @ uidzero org) [060120 20:04]:
Actually, this advisory is missing some important information. bugtraq engaged in this prior to the “buy out”. Security Focus engaged in this practice as well where there were some advisories that would go out only to the Security Focus paid private list and not be forwarded to the public list to which they were posted.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, H D Moore wrote:
FWIW, I have noticed that a few of my own BT posts will not reach my mailbox until they have already been added to the securityfocus.com BID database. It could be my subscriber position in the delivery queue, but it does seem suspicious sometimes. Could just be paranoia, but the list behavior/delivery delays definitely contribute to it.
In each case, moderators of Bugtraq vehemently denied the allegations. In one case, Al Huger (with Symantec at the time) reminded everyone that the combined lists of SecurityFocus were delivering over 7 million mails a day. That alone can cause issues in delivery of course. On the other hand, Symantec surely has the resources to ensure they run a set of mail servers that can churn out mail in such volume to ensure prompt delivery. Jump to more recently and you can still see incredible delay that has nothing to do with delivery issues. For example, RBS posted an advisory simultaneously to both Bugtraq and Full-Disclosure. Notice that the mail was posted on Sep 10 for Full-Disclosure and Sep 19 for Bugtraq. A nine day delay in moderating vulnerability information is not acceptable in today’s landscape of threats and bad actors. Regardless of intent, such delays simply don’t cut it.
In addition to the Bugtraq moderators having such delays, they will sometimes reject a post for trivial reasons such as “using a real IP address” in an example (one time using the vendor’s IP, another time using a public IP I control). They rejected those posts, while frequently allowing “target.com” in disclosures which is a real company.
With the death of Full-Disclosure, Bugtraq is now our primary source of vulnerability disclosure in the scope of mail lists, and only source for vulnerabilities in commercial software (out of scope for OSS). To those who argue that people “use mail a lot less now”, I suggest you look at the volume of Bugtraq, Full-Disclosure, and OSS. That is a considerable amount of disclosures made through that mechanism. Another mindset is that disclosing vulnerabilities can be done with a Tweet using a hash tag and a link to pastebin or other hosting site. To this I can quickly say that you have never run a VDB (and try finding a full set of your original l0pht or @stake advisories, many have largely vanished). Pastebin dumps are routinely removed. Researcher blogs, even hosted on free services such as WordPress and Blogger, disappear routinely. Worse, vendors that host advisories in their own products will sometimes remove their own historical advisories. The “Tweet + link” method simply does not cut it unless you want vulnerability provenance to vanish in large amounts. It is bad enough that VDBs have to rely on the Internet Archive so often (speaking of, donate to them!), but forcing us to set up a system to mirror all original disclosures is a burden. Last, for those who argue that nothing good is posted to Full-Disclosure, Lucian Constantin points out a couple good examples to counter the argument in his article on the list closing.
Instead, mail lists provide an open distributed method for releasing information. As you can see, these lists are typically mirrored on multiple sites as well as personal collections of incoming email. It is considerably easier and safer to use such a method for vulnerability disclosures going forward. In my eyes, and the eyes of others that truly appreciate what Full-Disclosure has done, the loss of that list is devastating in the short term. Not only will it introduce a small amount of bias in vulnerability aggregation, it will take time to recover. Even if someone else picks up the torch under the same name, or starts a new list to replace it, it will take time for people to transition to the new list.
To conclude, I would also ask that John Cartwright practice full disclosure himself. Shuttering the list is one thing, but blaming the action on an unnamed person with no real details isn’t what the spirit of the list is about. Give us details in a concise and factual manner, so that the industry can better understand what you are facing and what they may be getting into should they opt to run such a list.
When referencing vulnerabilities in your products, you have a habit of only using an internal tracking number that is kept confidential between the reporter (e.g. ICS-CERT, ZDI) and you. For example, from your HotFix page (that requires registration):
WI2815: Directory Traversal Buffer overflow. Provided and/or discovered by: ICS-CERT ticket number ICS-VU-579709 created by Anthony …
The ICS-CERT ticket number is assigned as an internal tracking ID while the relevant parties figure out how to resolve the issue. Ultimately, that ticket number is not published by ICS-CERT. I have already sent a mail to them suggesting they include it in advisories moving forward, to help third parties match up vulnerabilities to fixes to initial reports. Instead of using that, you should use the public ICS-CERT advisory ID. The details you provide there are not specific enough to know which issue this corresponds to.
In another example:
WI2146: Improved the Remote Agent utility (CEServer.exe) to implement authentication between the development application and the target system, to ensure secure downloading, running, and stopping of projects. Also addressed problems with buffer overrun when downloading large files. Credits: ZDI reports ZDI-CAN-1181 and ZDI-CAN-1183 created by Luigi Auriemma
In this case, these likely correspond to OSVDB 77178 and 77179, but it would be nice to know that for sure. Further, we’d like to associate those internal tracking numbers to the entries but vendors do not reliably put them in order, so we don’t know if ZDI-CAN-1181 corresponds to the first or second.
WI1944: ISSymbol Virtual Machine buffer overflow Provided and/or discovered by: ZDI report ZDI-CAN-1341 and ZDI-CAN-1342
In this case, you give two ZDI tracking identifiers, but only mention a single vulnerability. ZDI has a history of abstracting issues very well. The presence of two identifiers, to us, means there are two distinct vulnerabilities.
This is one of the primary reasons CVE exists, and why ZDI, ICS-CERT, and most vendors now use it. In most cases, these larger reporting bodies will have a CVE number to share with you during the process, or if not, will have one at the time of disclosure.
Like your customers do, we appreciate clear information regarding vulnerabilities. Many large organizations will use a central clearing house like ours for vulnerability alerting, rather than trying to monitor hundreds of vendor pages. Helping us to understand your security patches in turn helps your customers.
Finally, adding a date the patch was made available will help to clarify these issues and give another piece of information that is helpful to organizations.
Thank you for your consideration in improving your process!
Tonight, shortly before retiring from a long day of vulnerability import, I caught a tweet mentioning a web site about reporting vulnerabilities. Created on 15-aug-2013 per whois, the footer shows it was written by Fraser Scott, aka @zeroXten on Twitter.
This time, the web site is directly related to what we do. I want to be very clear here; I like the goal of this site. I like the simplistic approach to helping the reader decide which path is best for them. I want to see this site become the top result when searching for “how do I disclose a vulnerability?” This commentary is only meant to help the author improve the site. Please, take this advice to heart, and don’t hesitate if you would like additional feedback. [Update: After starting this blog last night, before publishing this morning, he already reached out. Awesome.]
Under the ‘What’ category, there are three general disclosure options:
NON DISCLOSURE, RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE, and FULL DISCLOSURE
First, you are missing a fourth option of ‘limited disclosure’. Researchers can announce they have found a vulnerability in given software, state the implications, and be done with it. Public reports of code execution in some software will encourage the vendor to prioritize the fix, as customers may begin putting pressure on them. Adding a video showing the code execution reinforces the severity. It often doesn’t help a VDB like ours, because such a disclosure typically doesn’t have enough actionable information. However, it is one way a researcher can disclose, and still protect themselves.
Second, “responsible”? No. The term was possibly coined by Steve Christey, further used by Russ Cooper, that was polarized by Cooper as well as Scott Culp at Microsoft (“Information Anarchy”, really?), in a (successful) effort to brand researchers as “irresponsible” if they don’t conform to vendor disclosure demands. The appropriate term more widely recognized, and fair to both sides, is that of “coordinated” disclosure. Culp’s term forgets that vendors can be irresponsible if they don’t prioritize critical vulnerabilities while customers are known to be vulnerable with public exploit code floating about. Since then, Microsoft and many other companies have adopted “coordinated” to refer to the disclosure process.
Under the ‘Who’ category, there are more things to consider:
SEND AN EMAIL
These days, it is rare to see domains following RFC-compliant addresses. That is a practice mostly lost to the old days. Telling readers to try to “Contact us” tab/link that invariably shows on web pages is better. Oh wait, you do that. However, that comes well after the big header reading TECHNICAL SUPPORT which may throw people off.
As a quick side note: “how to notifying them of security issues”. This is one of many spelling or grammar errors. Please run the text through a basic grammar checker.
Under the ‘How’ category:
This is excellent advice, except that using Tor bit since there are serious questions about the security/anonymity of it. If researchers are worried, they should look at a variety of options including using a coffee shop’s wireless, hotel wireless, etc.
This is also a great point, but more to the point, make sure your mail is polite and NOT THREATENING. Don’t threaten to disclose on your own timeline. See how the vendor handles the vulnerability report without any indication of disclosing it. Give them benefit of the doubt. If you get hints they are stalling at some point, then gently suggest it may be in the best interest of their customers to disclose. Remind them that vulnerabilities are rarely discovered by a single person and that they can’t assume you are the only one who has found it. You are just the only one who apparently decided to help the vendor.
Post to Full-Disclosure sure, or other options that may be more beneficial to you. Bugtraq has a history of stronger moderation, they tend to weed out crap. Send it directly to vulnerability databases and let them publish it anonymously. VDBs like Secunia generally validate all vulnerabilities before posting to their database. That may help you down the road if your intentions are called into question. Post to the OSS-security mail list if the vulnerability is in open-source software, so you get the community involved. For that list, getting a CVE identifier and having others on the list verifying or sanity checking your findings, it gives more positive attention to the technical issues instead of the politics of disclosure.
Using a bug bounty system is a great idea as it keeps the new researcher from dealing with disclosure politics generally. Let people experienced with the process, who have an established relationship and history with the vendor handle it. However, don’t steer newcomers to ZDI immediately. In fact, don’t name them specifically unless you have a vested interest in helping them, and if so, state it. Instead, break it down into vendor bug bounty programs and third-party programs. Provide a link to Bugcrowd’s excellent resource on a list of current bounty programs.
The fine print of course. Under CITATIONS, I love that you reference the Errata legal threats page, but this should go much higher on the page. Make sure new disclosers know the potential mess they are getting into. We know people don’t read the fine print. This could also be a good lead-in to using a third-party bounty or vulnerability handling service.
It’s great that you make this easy to share with everyone and their dog, but please consider getting a bit more feedback before publishing a site like this. It appears you did this in less than a day, when an extra 24 hours shows you could have made a stronger offering. You are clearly eager to make it better. You have already reached out to me, and likely Steve Christey if not others. As I said, with some edits and fix-ups, this will be a great resource.
Notes for this blog have been lingering for over three years now. In the daily grind to aggregate vulnerabilities, the time to write about them gets put on the back burner frequently. Rest assured, this is not a new issue by any means.
Back in the day, we had traversal attacks that allowed an attacker to ‘traverse’ outside an intended directory to access a file or directory that was not intended. The most basic example of this known to most is a web application traversal attack such as:
Making this request would direct the script to traverse outside the web server document root (DOCROOT) to access the system password file (/etc/passwd). For years, these attacks were simply known as “directory traversal” attacks. For limited traversals, CVSSv2 scoring would be 5.0 and look like (AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N). If the application is running with full privileges and could access any file on the system, it would score a 7.8 and look like (AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:N/A:N). Note that such an attack only allows an attacker to read the contents of the file, not write to it or execute it as a script. To help distinguish this, such attacks are usually qualified to “traversal arbitrary file access”.
Local File Inclusion (LFI) attacks go back to around 2003 and often exhibit the same trait as directory traversal attacks, as outlined above. Like the traversal, the attack typically involves a relative (e.g. ../../) or absolute path (e.g. &file=/path/to/file) to call a specific file on the system. The difference is in how the application handles the request. Instead of displaying the contents of the file like above, it will include the file as if it is an executable script. This means that arbitrary code, but limited to what is already on the file system, will be executed with the same privileges as the web application and/or web server. Using a combination of real-world common issues, this can be leveraged into full arbitrary remote code execution. For example, if you can access an incoming directory via FTP to write your own .php file, the local file inclusion vulnerability can be used to call that custom code and execute it.
Visually, these two vulnerabilities may look identical:
Despite appearances, these are two very different attacks. If the first is a traversal arbitrary file access issue, the contents of shell.php will be displayed. If the second is a traversal local file inclusion, the contents of shell.php will be processed as PHP code and executed.
Even with this simple concept, more and more researchers are unable to make this distinction. Arbitrary file access and local file inclusion are not only getting blended together, but traversals that allow for file manipulation (e.g. append, delete, overwrite) or even file enumeration (e.g. determine existence of file only) are also getting lumped in.
Specto Local File Inclusion by H4ckCity Security Team gives a PoC of:
This is clearly not a local file inclusion as the file being included is the standard text file containing password information. Instead, they show an absolute path file disclosure.
OneFileCMS v.1.1.5 Local File Inclusion Vulnerability by mr.pr0n gives a PoC of:
Again, calling a text file, this time via a standard directory traversal. If this is really a LFI, then the PoC does not show it.
Pollen CMS 0.6 File Disclosure by MizoZ gives a PoC of:
First, this is a bit suspicious as the parameter ‘image’ implies it will handle images such as JPG or PNG. Second, the [LFI] string doesn’t show if it is an absolute path or traversal. How could the researcher find it without knowing this? Third, and most important, their disclaimer:
The script only verifies the existence of the given file.
Sorry, not even close to a LFI.
In the U.S., you are expected to know and live by certain ethical standards related to school. You are taught early on that plagiarism is bad for example. You are taught that school experiments should be done in a safe manner, that does not harm people or animals. Despite this, most colleges and universities maintain a Code of Conduct or a Code of Ethics that applies to both students and faculty. In the security industry, integrity is critical. Part of having integrity is behaving ethically in everything you do. This is important because if a researcher or consultant is questionable or unethical in one part of their life, there is no guarantee they will be when performing services for a client.
In the last week, we have seen two incidents that call into question if university students understand this at all. The first was a PhD student from a university in the U.S. who was not pleased we wouldn’t share our entire database with him. While we try our best to support academic research, we do not feel any academic project requires our entire data set. Further, many of the research projects he and his colleagues are working on are funded by the U.S. government, who may have contract language that means all data gets handed over to them, including ours. Instead of accepting our decision, he said he could just scrape our site and take all of our data anyway. I reminded him that not only does it violate our license, but it violates his university code of conduct and jeopardizes any government funding.
The second instance is outlined in more detail below since a group of three students posted multiple advisories yesterday, that call into question their sense of ethics. Note that the idea of “responsible” disclosure is a term that was strongly pushed by Scott Culp and Microsoft. His
article on the topic has since been removed it seems. The term “responsible” disclosure is biased from the start, implying that anyone who doesn’t play by their rules is “irresponsible”. Instead, a better term of “coordinated disclosure” has been used since. Of course, the time frames involved in coordinated disclosure are still heavily debated and likely will never be agreed on. The time given to a vendor for them to patch a flaw cannot be a fixed length. A small content management system with an XSS vulnerability can often be patched in a day or week, where an overflow in a library of an operating system may take months due to testing for compatibility and regression. If the vulnerability is in a device that is difficult (or basically impossible) to upgrade, such as SCADA or non-connected devices (e.g. a pacemaker), then extra caution or thought should be given before disclosing it. While no fixed time can be agreed on, most people in the industry know when a researcher did not give a vendor enough time, or when a vendor seems to be taking too long. It isn’t science; it is a combination of gut and personal experience.
Yesterday’s disclosure of interest is by three students from the European University of Madrid who analyzed IP video cameras as part of their final project of “Security and Information Technology Master”. From their post:
In total, we analyzed 9 different camera brands and we have found 14 vulnerabilities.
**Note that all the analysis we have done has been from cameras found through Google dorks and Shodan, so we have not needed to purchase any of them for our tests. Everything we needed was online.
First, the obvious. Rather than purchasing their own hardware, they used Google and Shodan to find these IP cameras deployed by consumers and businesses. Devices that did not belong to them, they did not have permission to test, and ran the risk of disabling with their testing. If one of the cameras monitored security for a business and became disabled, it further posed a risk to the company as it created a further gap in their physical security.
Second, given these devices are deployed all over the world, and are traditionally difficult or annoying to upgrade, you might expect the researchers to give the vendors adequate time to verify the vulnerabilities and create a fix. How much time did the vendors get?
|Grandstream||11 days for 1 vuln, 0 days for 2 vulns|
Shortly after posting their advisory, others on the Full Disclosure mail list challenged them too. For the vendors who received 16 and 17 days, many researchers would consider over two weeks to be adequate. However, for the two vendors that got less than 24 hours warning before disclosure, that is not considered coordinated by anyone.
Every researcher can handle disclosure how they see fit. For some, they have not considered the implications of uncoordinated disclosure, often in a hurry to get their advisory out for name recognition or the thrill. For others that have been doing this a long time, they find themselves jaded after dealing with one too many vendor who was uncooperative, stalled more than 1000 days, or threatened a lawsuit. In this case, they are students at a university and likely not veterans of the industry. Despite their own beliefs, one has to wonder if they violated a code of conduct and what their professor will say.
Researcher Security Advisory Writing Guidelines
Open Security Foundation / OSVDB.org
moderators at osvdb.org
This document has been prepared by the Open Security Foundation (OSF) to assist security researchers in working with vendors and creating advisories. Security advisories help convey important information to the community, regardless of your goals or intentions. While you may have an intended audience in mind as you write an advisory, they will not be the only ones to read it. There is a lot of information that can be included in a properly written advisory, and leaving any out makes your advisory something less than it could be.
The OSF encourages researchers to use this document as a guideline for writing security advisories. We will focus on the content of the advisory, not the style. While there is a logical order of presentation, what ultimately matters is including the necessary information, though some things are most beneficial at the start of an advisory. Remember; more information is better, and including information for other parties ultimately helps more people.
How you disclose a vulnerability is your choice. The debate about “responsible” or “coordinated” disclosure has raged for over two decades. There is no universal accord on what is an appropriate period of time for a vendor to reply to a vulnerability report, or fix the issue, though it is generally agreed that it is at the least more than a day and less than a year. Researchers, we fully encourage you to work with vendors and coordinate disclosure if possible; your goal is to improve security after all, right? The following material will give you additional information and considerations for this process.
Brian Martin & Daniel Moeller