Posts Tagged http

Tickle! See? Gee, I …

A montage of TCL and Tcl-related logos

Tcl/Tk

Ah, TCL, the Tool Command Language. Based on the research conducted by myself and my colleagues here at Security Objectives (most notably Shane Macaulay,) we have concluded that Tcl has a multitude of security issues, especially when being used in a network environment; and contemporarily speaking, network usage is almost unavoidable. In essence, we are urging the use of extreme caution in Tcl-based web development–whether it’s being used directly or indirectly. To generalize, we also advise against using Tcl for any network application or protocol (not just HTTP.) Security Objectives has published an in-depth analysis of practical Tcl vulnerabilities. The whitepaper, entitled “Tickling CGI Problems”, outlines the theoretical backbone of the phenomena in the first half and presents cases of real-world exploitation in the second half. However, the background theory along with some general programming and Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol knowledge is recommended in order to gain a firm understanding of the exploits themselves.

This is not to say that Tcl should not be used ever, so as a disclaimer we are not advocating any programming language over another.  Our position is that the traditional approach to web security with Tcl has much room for improvement. Like any other programming language it works nicely in certain areas such as academic research, scientific computing, extensions, and software testing. With that being said, one project that comes to mind is regfuzz, a regular expression fuzzer written in Tcl which is quite useful. The distinction here is that regfuzz is not intended to be exposed to a public (or even a private) network. Surely, Safe-Tcl could successfully serve network clients in a hardened production environment given that assessed risks were rated low enough to suffice as acceptable. The problem is, that’s not the type of operations that occur in practice as evidenced by an overwhelming majority of cases.

The vulnerabilities exposed by the whitepaper affect TclHttpd, Lyris List Manager, cgi.tcl (which also uses Expect) as well as the Tcl language itself and interpreters thereof. Some of the attack methodologies and vulnerabilities identified are new to the public. Others are similar to well-known attacks or simply subversions of previous security patches, e.g. CVE-2005-4147. As time unfolds, there will surely be a surge in publicized Tcl weaknesses due to the research which is elaborated on within the whitepaper. If you’re interested in discovering vulnerabilities in Tcl software yourself, then there’s a grand list of references to Tcl-related things at http://www.tcl.tk/resource_dump.html. There is also a USENET newsgroup dedicated to it which is naturally called comp.lang.tcl.

For those of you attending CanSecWest 2011 in Vancouver, we are sponsoring the event. Professionals from Security Objectives will be in attendance to answer your queries regarding Tcl/Tk security or other areas of specialized research (information assurance, software assurance, cloud security, etc.) Of course, our professionals will also be available to field questions regarding Security Objectives’ product and service offerings as well. In addition, CanSecWest 2011 attendees receive special treatment when purchasing licenses for BlockWatch, the complete solution to total cloud security.

Advertisements

Comments (2)

The “X” Files

X-Files

It’s been a little while since we last posted so I wanted to get a blog out there so everybody knows we’re still alive! We just finalized the XML schema for our soon to be released BlockWatch product so with all the XML tags, elements, attributes, and such running through my head I figured I’d blog about XML security. I’m sure the majority of penetration testers out there routinely test for the traditional web application vulnerabilities when looking at Web Services. The same old authentication/authorizations weaknesses, faulty encoding/reencoding/redecoding, session management issues, et al. are still all there and it’s not uncommon for a SOAP Web Service to hand off an attack string to some middleware app that forwards it on deep into the internal network for handling by the revered legacy mainframe. Some organizations process so much XML over HTTP that they place XML accelerator devices on their network perimeter. I have a feeling that this trend will increase the amount of private IP web servers that feel the effects of HTTP Request Smuggling.

Additionally, XML parsers that fetch external document references (e.g. remote URI’s embedded in tag attributes) open themselves up to client-side offensives from evil web servers. Crafted file attachments can come in the form of a SOAP DIME element or the traditional multipart HTTP POST file upload. With those things in consideration, Phillippe Lagadec’s ExeFilter talk from CanSecWest 2008 made some pretty good points on why verifying filename extensions and file header contents or magic numbers isn’t always good enough.

The new manifestations of these old problems should be cause for concern but I personally find the newer XML-specific bugs the most exciting. For example: XPath injection, infinitely nesting tags to cause resource exhaustion via a recursive-descent parser, XXE (XML eXternal Entity) attacks, etc.

A single file format for everything is supposed to make things more simple but the lion’s share of real-world implementations over-complicate the fleeting markup language tags to the point where they become a breeding ground for old school exploits and new attack techniques alike–we’re all familiar with the cliche regarding failure of a “system of systems” with too many moving parts. I’ll touch on some more advanced XML attacks later in the post, but first let’s take a step back and remember XML when it still had a fresh beginning.

Towards the end of the twentieth century, when I first started taking notice of all the hype surrounding XML (the eXtensible Markup Language) I held a fairly skeptic attitude towards it as I tend to do with many fledgling technologies/standards. Perhaps I’ve been over-analytical in that respect but look how long it’s taken IPv6 to amass even a minuscule amount of usage! Albeit, a formal data representation grammar certainly was needed in that “dot-bomb” era, a time when mash-up web applications were near impossible to maintain since consistently pattern matching off-site content demanded continuous tweaking of regular expressions, parsers, etc. The so-called browser war of Netscape Navigator vs. Internet Explorer couldn’t have helped things either. If that was a war, then we must be on the brink of browser Armagaeddon now that there’s Chromium, FireFox3, IE8 RTM, Safari4 Beta, Opera, Konqueror, Amaya, w3m, lynx, etc. The good news? We now have Safari for Win32. The bad news? Microsoft no longer supports IE for MacOS..bummer.

I think it’s fairly rational to forecast continued adoption of XML Encryption and WS-* standards for SOAP Web Services that handle business-to-business and other communications protocol vectors. If you’re bored of the same old Tomcat/Xerces, WebLogic/SAX, etc. deployments then prepare for applications written in newer API’s to arrive soon; namely Microsoft WCF and Oslo, the Windows Communication Foundation API and a modeling platform with design tools (respectively.) From the surface of .NET promotional hype it appears as if WCF and Oslo will be synthesized into a suitereminiscent of BizTalk Server’s visual process modeling approach. WCF has commissioned many Web Services standards including WS-Security but of course not all major software vendors are participating in the all of the standards. The crew in Redmond have committed to REST in WCF and it wouldn’t surprise me to see innovative XML communications techniques arising from the combination of Silverlight 3 and .NET RIA Services; for those of you who still don’t know, RIA is an acronym for Rich Internet Applications! Microsoft is leveraging the interoperability of this extensible markup language for the long-proprietary document formats of their Office product suite as part of their Open Specification Promise. Even the Microsoft Interactive Canvas, essentially a table that provides I/O through touch uses a form of XML (XAML) for markup.

Blogosphereans, Security Twits, and other Netizens alike seem to take this Really Simple Syndication thing for granted. Over the past several years or so there’s been a trend of malicious payloads piggybacking on banner ads. Since RSS and Atom are capable of syndicating images as well, I’d like to see a case study detailing the impact of a shellcode-toting image referenced from within an XML-based syndication format. Obvious client-side effects that occur when the end user’s browser renders the image are to be expected (gdiplus.dll, anyone?) What else could be done? Web 2.0 search engines with blog and image search features often pre-process those images into a thumbnail as a part of the indexing process. A little recon might discover the use of libMagick by one and libgd by another. Targeting one specific spiderbot over another could be done by testing the netmask of the source IP address making the TCP connection to the web server or probably even as simple as inspecting the User Agent field in the HTTP request header. Crafting a payload that functions both before and after image resizing or other additional processing (ex. EXIF meta-data removal) would be quite an admirable feat. Notwithstanding, I was quite surprised how much Referer traffic our blog got from images.google.com after Shane included a picture of the great Charlie Brown in his “Good Grief!” post…but I digress.

Several years ago when I was still living in New York, I became fascinated with the subtle intricacies of XML-DSig while studying some WS-Security literature. XML Signature Validation in particular had attracted my attention in earnest. In addition to the characteristics of traditional digital signatures, XML Signatures exhibit additional idiosyncrasies that require a bit of pragmatism in order to be implemented properly and therefore also to be verified properly as well (ex. by a network security analyst.) This is mainly because of the Transform and Reference elements nested within the Signature elements–References and Transforms govern the data to be provided as input to the DigestMethod which produces the cryptic DigestValue string. A Reference element contains a URI attribute which represents the location of the data to be signed. Depending on the type of Transform element, data first dereferenced from the Reference URI is then transformed (i.e. via an XPath query) prior to signature calculation. That’s essentially how it works. Something that may seem awkward is that the XML being signed can remain exactly the same while the digital signature (e.g. the DigestValue element value) has changed. I’ve decided to leave some strange conditions that often come about as an exercise for the reader:

What happens to an XML Digital Signature if … ?

  • No resource exists at the location referenced by the Reference element’s URI attribute value.
  • A circular reference is formed because a URI attribute value points to another Reference element whose URI attribute value is identical to the first.
  • The URI identifies the Signature element itself.
  • A resource exists at the URI, but it’s empty.
  • The Reference element has a URI attribute value which is an empty string, <Reference URI=””>

Leave a Comment

Updating the Updater

Professor John Frink Updates

Attacks against security components have been fairly common on server operating systems for decades; on PC’s this wasn’t always necessary because of security models that resembled swiss cheese. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Microsoft has been working diligently to close obvious holes (for the most part.) As a result, researchers have shifted their focus to the attack surface of security-centric code on PC’s. Case in point; in the past several years we’ve seen loads of advisories released for vulnerabilities in anti-virus software. Read the Yankee Group’s “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: The Hackers Turn Pro” for a more in-depth analysis of this trend. One area in particular where I feel PC protection is lacking is automated software security update mechanisms; there is a lot of room for improvement.

According to Hewlett-Packard, Digital Equipment Corporation was the first in the industry to perform patch delivery in 1983. Prior to this, updates were commonly delivered on tape by private courier. At one of 2600’s HOPE conferences, Kevin Mitnick spoke about an analog attack he had used to compromise this process during the social engineering panel. The gist of it was that he wore a UPS uniform (procured from a costume store) and delivered the “update” tape to his mark with a login trojan on it. Later, Mitnick became known for using SYN floods and TCP hijacking against Tsutomo Shimomura. Some sources even refer to this sort of digital man-in-the-middle as “The Mitnick Attack.”

Many software update components don’t use public key infrastructure to cryptographically verify the validity of the update server (i.e. SSL) or the updated package (i.e. digital signature.) This is a problem. Impersonating the software update server is usually trivial. Wi-Fi access point impersonation, DNS cache poisoning, ARP spoofing, session hijacking, and compromising the legitimate update server are all possibilities.

Some applications–I’m not going to name any names–rely on HTTP (note that I didn’t say HTTPS) for downloading packages after checking for updates instead of using a separate file transfer manager program or internal update component. This is much easier to reverse engineer than a custom update solution. Sometimes the attacker can allow the real update server to carry out most of the process and simply shoehorn their malcode into the update session(s) after initial preconditions are met.

SSL won’t save the day either unless it’s implemented properly. I’ve seen plaintext updaters with digital signatures that are safer than some HTTPS updaters. Gentoo’s Portage Tree (emerge and ebuild) is a good example of an effective plaintext digital signature approach. See SECOBJADV-2008-01 (CVE-2008-3249) for a description of a software updater with an erroneous SSL implementation.

The issue is further complicated because software updaters themselves need to be updated in order to resolve such vulnerabilities. Typically this requires a major architectural modification. What’s worse is that breaking the updater would force users to manually update. Hoyvin-Glayvin!

Comments (2)

%d bloggers like this: