DevelopSec

pen testing

by Leave a Comment

Thinking about starting a bug bounty? Do this first.

Application security has become an important topic within our organizations. We have come to understand that the data that we deem sensitive and critical to our business is made available through these applications. With breaches happening all the time, it is critical to take reasonable steps to help protect that data by ensuring that our applications are implementing strong controls.

Over the years, testing has been the main avenue for “implementing” security into applications. We have seen a shift to the left more recently, leading to doing more throughout the entire development cycle, but we still have a ways to go. I am still a firm believer in embedding security into each of the phases as our main means of securing applications. Testing, however, is still a major component of any security program.

Typically, organizations rely on penetration testing to find the flaws in their applications. This is the de facto standard for understanding your risk. Unfortunately, penetration testing for applications has been watered down from what we think about with network testing. Many of the assessments we call penetration tests these days are just automated scans transposed into a custom report. These types of testing overlook one of the components a penetration test provides, which is the manual testing. Of course, there is much more to a penetration test, but that is not the focus of this post.

Internally, organizations may implement automated tools to help identify security flaws within their applications. These tools are good at finding certain types of flaws, and usually quite quickly. Like many current penetration tests, they lack the manual assessment side.

Not only does manual testing have the ability to find different types of flaws, such as authentication, authorization, CSRF, business logic, etc., it also has the ability to identify flaws that an automation tool overlooks. For example, a tool may not find every instance of cross-site scripting, depending on how that tool analyzes the system. Granted, manual testing is not guaranteed to find every instance either. With each type of testing, there is always a number of issues that will not be identified. The goal is to start reducing these numbers down over time.

Handling the results of all these res ports from the different assessments is critical to how well you start creating more resilient applications. In many organizations, vulnerabilities identified are handled as individual items and patched. In my opinion, the return on investment is when you can analyze these results to review your development process and see what improvements can be made to reduce the chance these types of flaws will be included in the future. Having an expert available to help review the issues and provide insight into how to use that information to improve your process is valuable.

Having a solid application development process in place is important before thinking about implementing a bug bounty program within your organization. If you are not already doing things consistently, there is a better chance the bounty program will fail.

Bug bounty programs have been becoming more prevalent over the last few years. This is especially true for newer technical startups. We have seen much slower adoption with most of the major corporations. There are many reasons for this, which are outside the scope of this post. There have been questions on whether bug bounties can replace penetration testing. The answer is no, because the goal of each of these is different. There are plenty of articles discussing the subject. A bug bounty program has also been seen by many as the evidence to show they are doing application security. Unfortunately, we can’t test ourselves secure. As I stated previously, testing is just a part of our solution for application security.

A key difference between our traditional testing and a bug bounty program is that bug bounties pay by the bug. Our traditional testing is provided at flat fees. For example, that automated tool is a set price for a month or year subscription. A penetration test is a set price per test. A bug bounty is priced per bug, which makes the cost very unpredictable. In addition, if you are not already doing many of the things previously discussed, there could be a lot of bugs to be found, leading to potentially high payouts.

As I have stated before, penetration testing has a different purpose and it can be very expensive. At Jardine Software we offer more budget friendly manual application security testing at a fixed cost. The goal is not necessarily to find every instance of every vulnerability or to exploit vulnerabilities in the way a penetration test would. The focus is on augmenting the automated testing you may already have in place and to provide that missing manual piece. The testing is performed manually by using the application in combination with Burp Suite, to look for weaknesses and provide those in a way that helps prioritize and then remediate them according to your organization’s needs.

The manual application security testing is typically performed over a week to two weeks and includes a broader scope than a typical bug bounty program. The reason for this is that we want to help identify risks that we see based on our years of experience to make you aware. This assessment can then help identify where you may have issues within your application before opening it up for a crowd sourced bounty program where each bug is priced individually.

If you are thinking about implementing a bug bounty program, reach out and lets chat first. Even if you are not considering a bug bounty program, do you have any manual application security testing implemented? We have the expertise to help provide the necessary testing or provide training for your internal teams to start applying manual testing techniques as part of your life cycle.

by Leave a Comment

Installing BeEF on ubuntu 18.04

While working on a VM for a class, I had the opportunity to install BeEF for the students. This was the first VM I have built using Ubuntu 18.04, so I expected there to be a few hiccups along the way. The good news is that the process was pretty straight forward and simple. Here are the steps to getting this up and running on Ubuntu 18.04.

I started off by creating a new virtual machine using Ubuntu 18.04. I won’t go through the steps of creating a new virtual machine image, but the takeaway here is that I am starting with a fresh Ubuntu system.

The BeEF team has put together some simple instructions for installing the application (https://github.com/beefproject/beef/wiki/Installation). This walk through follows these instructions pretty close, with one exception to clear up an error we will see along the way (or at least an error I saw).

The first thing I am going to do is install Ruby on my Ubuntu 18.04 image. To do this we want to run the following command:

sudo apt install ruby ruby-dev

The next step is to get the BeEF source files. We will get these from git. If you haven’t installed git, make sure to run the following command first:

sudo apt install git

Once git is available, we can clone the git project with the following command:

git clone https://github.com/beefproject/beef

This will download the source files for BeEF. Next, move into the beef directory:

cd beef

This is where the I started to run into an issue. The original beef instructions say to just run:

./install

However, when I did this, I received a permission error. To resolve that I ran:

sudo ./install

There is probably a way to fix this permission error without running as sudo.. but I didn’t investigate that further.

Once the installation was successfully completed, I ran:

./beef

I was quickly greeted with the following error:

demo@ubuntu:~/beef$ ./beef
Traceback (most recent call last):
4: from ./beef:44:in `<main>’
3: from /usr/lib/ruby/2.5.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:59:in `require’
2: from /usr/lib/ruby/2.5.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:59:in `require’
1: from /home/demo/beef/core/loader.rb:17:in `‘
/home/demo/beef/core/loader.rb:17:in `require’: cannot load such file — xmlrpc/client (LoadError)

After digging around, I found that ubuntu 18.04 by default installs Ruby 2.5, which apparently doesn’t have the xmlrpc/client embedded. To fix this, we just need to tell BeEF that it needs this gem. To fix this, I modified the Gemfile file following these steps:

rm Gemfile.lock – Do this first to remove the lock file. Click Y to remove it.

sudo nano Gemfile

In the file, add the following line:

gem ‘xmlrpc’

Save the file and re-run the installation:

sudo ./install

At this point, the installation should be successful. Try running the following command:

./beef

You should see something like the following:

demo@ubuntu:~/beef$ ./beef
[ 6:41:32][*] Browser Exploitation Framework (BeEF) 0.4.7.0-alpha
[ 6:41:32]    |   Twit: @beefproject
[ 6:41:32]    |   Site: https://beefproject.com
[ 6:41:32]    |   Blog: http://blog.beefproject.com
[ 6:41:32]    |_  Wiki: https://github.com/beefproject/beef/wiki
[ 6:41:32][*] Project Creator: Wade Alcorn (@WadeAlcorn)
[ 6:41:33][*] BeEF is loading. Wait a few seconds...
[ 6:41:38][*] 8 extensions enabled.
[ 6:41:38][*] 301 modules enabled.
[ 6:41:38][*] 2 network interfaces were detected.
[ 6:41:38][*] running on network interface: 127.0.0.1
[ 6:41:38]    |   Hook URL: http://127.0.0.1:3000/hook.js
[ 6:41:38]    |_  UI URL:   http://127.0.0.1:3000/ui/panel
[ 6:41:38][*] running on network interface: 192.168.116.139
[ 6:41:38]    |   Hook URL: http://192.168.116.139:3000/hook.js
[ 6:41:38]    |_  UI URL:   http://192.168.116.139:3000/ui/panel
[ 6:41:38][!] Warning: Default username and weak password in use!
[ 6:41:38]    |_  New password for this instance: ec04906c30d928fb857
[ 6:41:38][*] RESTful API key: 6bd0b11e772df40
[ 6:41:38][*] HTTP Proxy: http://127.0.0.1:6789
[ 6:41:38][*] BeEF server started (press control+c to stop)

Notice that there is a “New password” configured here. This is because by default beef sets the username/password to beef/beef. As this is a default, hard-coded password, it is insecure. To fix this, beef detects the default and creates a new temp password to protect the instance. It is recommended to update the username and password to your instance.

Updating the Password

To change the password stop beef by typing ctrl+c. Now, we will edit the config.yaml file:

sudo nano config.yaml

You should see something like this:


beef:
    version: '0.4.7.0-alpha'
    # More verbose messages (server-side)
    debug: false
    # More verbose messages (client-side)
    client_debug: false
    # Used for generating secure tokens
    crypto_default_value_length: 80

    # Credentials to authenticate in BeEF.
    # Used by both the RESTful API and the Admin interface
    credentials:
        user:   "beef"
        passwd: "beef"

    # Interface / IP restrictions

Modify the user and passwd fields to your own values and then save the file using ctrl+x.

When you restart BeEF and go to the ui panel you should now be able to login with your new credentials.

Notes
There should be a way to install the application without using sudo ./install. This should be checked so you don’t install using root permissions. This is a non-production image for me to use for student training.

Make sure you change the default username and password to help lock down your instance.

This tutorial is for educational purposes only. Hacking without permission is illegal and should not be done.

by Leave a Comment

Choosing Application Security Tools

There are lots of security tools available, so how do you know which one to pick?

If your security team is not including the application teams in the decision, you run a big risk of failure. The security team does get the ability to form relationships with vendors. We see them at conferences. We know people that work there. Because our focus is on security, we know the tools that exist in our space and we have an idea of which ones may be better than others. Of course, this is often due to what we hear from others, rather than our own experience with those tools.

Picking a tool in a vacuum is less than ideal. Sure, the tool may have five stars and has great detection rates. However, if the tool doesn’t fit into the development process and causes more overhead and friction, it will end up failing. A tool with 100% accuracy is still useless if it is not actually being used.

I have seen over and over where a security group acquires a tool, especially static analysis, and a few months later they realize it is just sitting on the shelf. Like all of us, we are excited when we get a new toy. We use it, learn it. Then, the newness wears off. Without the proper processes in place, this can happen with security tools as well. We don’t want this to happen to you.

The first step in determining which tools make sense is to understand the development process now and where it is going. Lets talk about static analysis for a moment. If your development process doesn’t make use of continuous integration and doesn’t plan to then that is not a high priority feature of the tool you receive. Have you considered what IDE the developers use?

I once had a situation where static analysis was about to be rolled out. The security team worked to pick a vendor and get the ball rolling. It was later in the process that the development team was brought on board with the conversation. They asked questions that were less of a priority to the security team, but more of a priority to them. For example, The tool provided a plugin for their IDE. However, when digging deeper, the plugin ran a few versions behind. So what had appeared to be a good setup, now looked a little less efficient since the plugin may not work. This isn’t a deal breaker, but depending on how you were planning on this solution working, it adds friction to the process. The more friction, the more pain.

The next step is understanding who will ultimately be using this tool? For those that listen to the podcast on a regular basis and follow my blogs, you know I am a huge fan of the application teams having direct access to these tools. In my opinion, static analysis is a developers tool. It is there to evaluate the source code and identify policy violations that only the developer can resolve. Giving them access and control over that function and embedding it into their process reduces that friction. Don’t confuse this with the idea that security is not getting the results. Security still needs to have insight into what is going on with security flaws within the application. But to be efficient, the results of these tools need to fit into the flow of how development works. Not be one-off reports under different processes.

This is no different, in my opinion, than dynamic analysis or interactive analysis. These are tools that should be used by the QA group. The group that is responsible for testing and most likely already has automated testing capabilities. They are trained in identifying bugs, reporting, and tracking them. Building these types of tools into their process just makes sense. How many listeners have their own stories of the security team exporting a thousand page report out of that dynamic scanner and sending it to the application team as a pdf? I have been there. Even I won’t read through that report.

The moral of the story here is that if we don’t understand how development works, what type of tools they already use, and what they can handle, we will probably pick a solution that will be ineffective, or at the very least, cause us a lot more work. The goal is not to just shove tools onto the development teams and say do this. As application security representatives, our goal is to help build better applications. That doesn’t mean that our job is to run all the tools and hound the application teams to fix items. By understanding the environments and processes we can pick tools that will fit much better, allowing us to focus our time on building out other solutions or processes for the organization. We are still relied upon to provide the expert advice and guidance to the issues that are identified.

If you are considering implementing these types of tools, take a moment to sit down with all involved parties to get everyone on board. A well laid out plan will go much further than a shotgun approach.

by Leave a Comment

OWASP 2017 Changes

When I talk to people about application security, the most recognized topics is the OWASP Top 10. If you haven’t heard of the top 10, or need a refresher, you can get the full list at:

https://www.owasp.org/images/7/72/OWASP_Top_10-2017_%28en%29.pdf.pdf

The OWASP Top 10 is on a three year update cycle. We had the list in 2010, 2013 and now the latest is 2017. You may be wondering why it is 2017 rather than 2016. I think that is a question a lot of people had. In any case, the list made it out to final release after the initial draft was rejected. Now that it is here, we can analyze it and see how it affects us and our organizations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfDuxwFScOE

What I think sticks out more to me this update over previous updates is the removal of some pretty common flaws based on my experience. In the past we have seen flaws move up or down on the risk level, or get combined, but not as much removed. In 2017, we saw two items get removed:

  • Cross-site Request Forgery
  • Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards

I find these items interesting because I see them on most of the assessments I do. Let’s take a quick look at them.

Cross-site Request Forgery

CSRF can be a pretty serious flaw based on its context. It is the ability to force the victim’s browser to make requests to another site they are authenticated too without their knowledge. An example of a higher-risk context is the ability to change the victim’s email address on their profile. If the system doesn’t have two factor authentication or other safe guards, changing the email address can lead to the ability to request a password reset. In many situations, this can lead to easily taking over the victim’s account.
This is just one example of how CSRF can be used. The good news is that many newer frameworks provide some level of CSRF protection built-in. So in many applications it is not as prevalent. However, based on my experience, not everyone is using the latest frameworks. Due to this, I still find this on a lot of the assessments I do.

Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards

Unvalidated Redirects is often viewed as a low risk issue. In many cases, it may represent a low risk. There are some situations that make unvalidated redirects fairly dangerous. A good example is the redirect often performed by login forms. A common feature of many applications is to redirect the user to a specific resource after logging in. To do this, a parameter in the URL specifies the path to be sent to. If the application allows redirecting to external sites, it is simple to set up a malicious site with the same look and feel as the expected site. If the victim uses your link with the reference to your malicious site they may be presented with your fake login page after successfully logging into the real site. The victim may believe they have mistyped their password and just login again without checking the URL, leading to account takeover.

We also saw to access control findings get merged into one. This change makes a lot of sense when you look at each item. They are both regarding access control issues.

With the removal and merging, the list has brought on three new vulnerabilities:

  • XML External Entities (XXE)
  • Insecure Deserialization
  • Insufficient Logging and Monitoring

XML External Entities (XXE)

XML External Entities is a vulnerability that takes advantage of how XML Parsers interpret the supplied XML. In this case, it is possible to reference other resources outside of the XML document. A common scenario is the ability to read other files on the web server, such as the /etc/passwd file. This vulnerability also may allow a denial of service attack to occur due to embedding specific entities. This vulnerability obviously relies on the application parsing XML data. If your application is parsing XML, it is recommended to make sure the parser is ignoring or blocking DTDs. If your parser doesn’t have that option, or you need to allow some DTDs, make sure your input validation is limiting those to only acceptable ones.

Insecure Deserialization

Insecure Deserialization occurs when you are deserializing data that has not been properly sanitized. This occurs because we assume that the data serialized has not been modified. When the data is modified, it could be executed during the deserialization process to perform commands. To help prevent this, make sure you are enforcing strict data checks on the objects that have been serialized. I do not see this very often in many of the assessments I do. Just depends on the application as many do not use much serialization.

Insufficient Logging and Monitoring

When I talk to people and ask them about logging, the first response, or usually the only response, is related to troubleshooting. There is no doubt that troubleshooting is critical for any application. If the application is not running as expected, users may leave, transactions may get lost, or a myriad of other issues may occur. Logging is for much more than just troubleshooting. Proper logging of security related events can help identify an attack while it is occurring as well as help identify what happened after the fact. It can be very difficult to identify what data was accessed or how if there are no logs indicating such information. It is good that we are seeing more attention called to this practice, although it can be a complex one to implement and verify. Don’t forget that once you start logging security events, they must be monitored to take action.

Wrap Up

Changes to the OWASP Top 10 isn’t something new. We know it will happen and it may require some adjustment to what we are doing internally. While we do see items drop or get added, it just highlights that the top 10 is a mere starting point of security. Every organization should have their list of top 10 risks. Don’t limit yourself to these short lists. They are to help identify the highest risks and implement them in a feasible way. Application security doesn’t happen overnight. There has to be a starting point and then a path to mature.

Listen to the podcast on this topic. http://podcast.developsec.com/developsec-podcast-91-owasp-top-10-2017-thoughts

by Leave a Comment

Two-Factor Authentication Considerations

There was a recent article talking about how a very small percentage of google users actually use 2-factor authentication. You can read the full article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/17/no_one_uses_two_factor_authentication/

Why 2-Factor

Two-factor authentication, or multi-factor authentication, is a valuable step in the process to protect accounts from unauthorized users. Traditionally, we have relied just on a username/password combination. That process had its own weaknesses that many applications have moved to improve. For example, many sites now require “complex” passwords. Of course, complex is up for debate. But we have seen the minimum password length go up and limitations on using known weak passwords go up. Each year we see lists of the most common passwords to not use, some being 123456 or Password. I hope no one is using these types of passwords. To be honest, I don’t know of any sites I use that would allow this type of password. So many these days require a mix of characters or special characters.

The above controls are meant to help reduce the risk of someone just guessing your password, there are other controls to help try to limit brute forcing techniques. Many accounts offer account lockout after X number of invalid attempts. There are other controls that we also see implemented around protecting the username/password logic. None of these controls help protect against a user reusing passwords on another site that may be compromised. They also do not protect against a user falling for a social engineering attack to trick them into sharing their passwords. To help combat this, many sites will implement a second factor beyond username/password.

The idea of the second factor is that even if you have the username and password, you will not have this other piece of information. In most cases, it is a value that changes every 60 seconds or so, and is delivered over a protected channel. For example, the token used may be sent via SMS, a voice call, or created through a phone application like the Google Authenticator application. So even if the attacker is able to get your password, via a breach, brute force, or just lucky guessing, in theory they would not have access to that second factor.

Why Are People Not Using It?

So why do people not enable the second factor on their Google accounts? Unfortunately, the presentation didn’t appear to explain that, which makes sense since it is difficult to know why people do or do not do certain things. I think there may be a few reasons for it that we will briefly touch on.

First, I think many people just are not aware of enabling the second factor. To be fair, it is sort of buried down in settings that may be difficult to find if you are not really looking for it. If it is not front and center, then there is a much smaller chance people will go seeking it out. To add to the issue, many people really don’t understand what 2-factor authentication means or how it really helps them. Sure, in security we get it, but that doesn’t mean everyone else does. How do we make it more prominent that this is a positive security feature? Many users will already be aware of 2-factor if they use online banking as most of those have started enforcing it.

Many people think that two factor authentication is a burden or it will slow their access down. This is usually not the case unless the application has implemented it poorly. Many sites will allow you to save your computer so you don’t need to enter the 2nd factor every time you access the site. However, it will require it if you access from a different computer.

To complicate things, other applications may not support signing in with 2 factors, like your email client. In these cases, you have to generate an app password which can be very confusing to many users, especially those that are not technically savvy.

There may be a chance that users don’t think they need to protect their email accounts, that it is not sensitive. If you just use email to communicate with friends and receive junk mail, what could be so bad, right? Most people forget that things like password resets are performed using an email account. Having control of an email account provides a lot of control over a lot of things. While it may seem small, email is an important function to protect.

If you are using Gmail, I recommend configuring 2-factor authentication. The following video walks through setting it up using SMS (Although there are other options as well):

Demo- Google 2 factor

If you are developing applications, I recommend looking into providing the option of 2-factor authentication. When you do this, make sure that you are promoting its use in a positive way. If you already have 2-factor with your application, can you run a report to determine what percentage of users are actually using it? If that number is low, what steps can you take to increase them?

Don’t assume that any application is not worthy of the extra security. Many applications are already providing 2-factor and that number will just increase. While we still have the password, we will always be looking for ways to add more protection. When implemented properly, it is simple for the end user, but effective in increasing security. If your user base is not taking advantage of the option, take the time to assess why that is and how it can be improved.

As I was writing this up, I ran into an interesting situation with 2-factor that sparked some more thoughts. When looking to support 2-factor authentication and not using SMS, take careful consideration to the applications you may choose to support. On the Apple App Store alone there are over 200 different authenticator apps available. Some are interchangeable while others are not. This can be another barrier in users choosing to enable 2-factor authentication.

by Leave a Comment

Tinder Mobile Take-Aways

While browsing through the news I noticed an article talking about the Tinder mobile app and a privacy concern. You can read the article at https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/tinder-app-security-flaws-put-users-privacy-at-risk/. To summarize what is considered the issue is that the mobile application does not transmit the photos that you see using HTTPS. This means that anyone on the same connection can see the traffic and, ultimately, see the photos you are presented. From my understanding, it doesn’t appear the potential attacker can tell who the user is that is viewing these photos as the rest of the traffic is properly using HTTPS.

We have discussed the move to all HTTPS multiple times on this blog and we are seeing a lot of sites making the switch. With web applications it is easy to see if the site is using HTTPS or not with the indicators near the address bar. Of course, these indicators are often confusing to most, but at least we have the ability to see the status. With a mobile application it is much more difficult to tell if data is transmitted using HTTPS or not because there is no visible indicator. Instead, one needs to view the raw traffic or use a web proxy to see how the data is transmitted. This can be misleading to many people because the assumption is that the data is protected because it is hidden under more layers.

In this instance, the ability to see these photos may not be considered that sensitive by many. Assuming that anyone can create an account and see the photos doesn’t make them a secret. People have opted to post their images for others to find them on the network. Of course, level of sensitivity is in the eye of the beholder these days. Another issue that is potentially possible in this situation is that the attacker could manipulate that image traffic to show a different image. This could lead to the end user seeing a different image than the one expected. The usefulness of this could be called into question at any type of large scale.

The take-away here is that when we are building applications we must take care in understanding how we are transmitting all of our data to determine what needs to be protected. As I mentioned, there is already a push to make everything HTTPS all the time. If you have decided not to use HTTPS for your connections, have you documented the reasons? What does your threat model tell you about the risks with that data and its communication. How does that risk line up with your acceptance procedures.

Another interesting tidbit came out of the article mentioned above. In addition to seeing the actual photos, they found it was possible to identify whether or not the end user liked or disliked the photo by comparing the network traffic. The interesting part about this part is that those decisions were encrypted when transmitted. The key point here is that the traffic for each decision was a set size and the sizes were different for like and dislike. By viewing the traffic after seeing a photo, it is possible to determine which ones were liked based on the size of the requests. In this case, it still doesn’t identify the end user that is using the application.

We don’t typically spend a lot of time analyzing the size of the requests we send in the event someone may try to determine what actions we are taking over an encrypted channel. Most of the time these actions are not possible to determine, or the level of effort is way above what is realistic. The easy solution would be to make sure all traffic was encrypted and we wouldn’t be able to know what images were liked or disliked. Maybe it would be possible to still see the difference, but with no way to tie it to specific images. The other option is to attempt to pad the requests so that they are all the same size. This would be for highly sensitive systems as the complexity may not be worth the benefit.

Of course, all of this is based on the attacker being on the same network as the end user so they can intercept or view the traffic in the first place. In the case of a public place, it might just be easier to hover over your shoulder and watch you use the app then intercept the traffic and guess at who is using it.

Both of these topics are good conversation starters within your organization. They help us realize that even just one request that doesn’t use HTTPS may be seen and could raise an issue. It also helps us to see that sometimes even encrypted data can be determined, but that doesn’t mean it is a high risk. Each situation is different and should be properly analyzed to determine the risk it creates for the company and the organization.