DevelopSec

vulnerability

by Leave a Comment

What is the difference between Brute Force and Credential Stuffing?

Many people get confused between brute force attacks and credentials stuffing. To help clear this up, here is a simple description of the two. These are both in regards to the login form only.

Brute Force
Brute force attacks on the login form consist of the attacker having a defined list (called a dictionary) of potential passwords. The attacker will then try each of these defined passwords with each username the attacker is trying to brute force. Put simply, this is a 1 (username) too many (password) attack.

A common mitigation to brute force attacks is the implementation of account lockout. In this case, after 3, or 5, or 10 failed attempts for a single username, the user account is locked to block any more attempts. This drastically reduces the number of passwords that may be tried in a short period of time.

Credential Stuffing
Credential Stuffing is another attack on the login form but it differs from a brute force attack in that the list used contains both a username and a password. This list is often obtained through a data breach at another organization. The purpose is to find accounts that are re-used across multiple sites. In this case, the attack is a 1 (username) to 1 (password) attack. For each username, only one password will be attempted.

Unlike with Brute Force, account lockout doesn’t have much affect on credential stuffing. Multi-factor authentication is a good mitigation as it will limit the use of valid credentials.

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 OWASP JuiceShop with Heroku

I am often asked the question by clients and students where people can go to learn hacking techniques for application security. For years, we have had many purposely vulnerable applications available to us. These applications provide a safe environment for us to learn more about hacking applications and the vulnerabilities that are exposed without the legal ramifications.

In this post I want to show you how simple it is to install the OWASP Juice Shop application using Heroku. Juice Shop is a purposely vulnerable application written using NodeJS and Angular. It goes beyond just being an application with some vulnerabilities. It is set up to be a capture the flag (CTF) style application with its own scoreboard.

To learn more about the Juice Shop project, head over to https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Juice_Shop_Project. This is the main landing page and looks like the following:

Juice Shop

The first step in installing on Heroku is to make sure you are logged into your Heroku account. If you haven’t created one, do that first. Once you are logged in you should be in your dashboard that looks something like this:

HerokuInstall 1

Now that we are logged into Heroku, let’s head over to the Juice-shop GitHub page at https://github.com/bkimminich/juice-shop.

HerokuInstall 2

As you can see there is a button to “Deploy to Heroku”. Clicking this button will take you back to Heroku and ask for the app name as shown below:

HerokuInstall 3

Once you select a unique app name and the region clicking deploy starts the process. It doesn’t take very long (maybe 3-4 minutes) for the deploy to complete. While it is deploying you will see the build output as shown below:

HerokuInstall 4

Once the deployment is complete, you can click the button to View your new app. This will basically open a new tab at the location of your named instance which is the [name you picked].herokuapp.com as shown below:

HerokuInstall 5

The Juice Shop has a lot of vulnerabilities in it. It is a great way to learn more about how to exploit some of these vulnerabilities and test your skills. If you have little knowledge of application security vulnerabilities or the OWASP Top 10 check out our training courses we have available:

Please remember that hacking is illegal. If you want to learn more about application security and test your skills, do it responsibly and use great applications like the Juice Shop as your targets.

by Leave a Comment

Installing OWASP JuiceShop with Docker

I am often asked the question by clients and students where people can go to learn hacking techniques for application security. For years, we have had many purposely vulnerable applications available to us. These applications provide a safe environment for us to learn more about hacking applications and the vulnerabilities that are exposed without the legal ramifications.

In this post I want to show you how simple it is to install the OWASP Juice Shop application using a Docker container. Juice Shop is a purposely vulnerable application written using NodeJS and Angular. It goes beyond just being an application with some vulnerabilities. It is set up to be a capture the flag (CTF) style application with its own scoreboard.

To learn more about the Juice Shop project, head over to https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Juice_Shop_Project. This is the main landing page and looks like the following:

Juice Shop

On the right hadn’t side there are links to Installation instructions. Clicking on the Docker Link takes us to the following page (https://hub.docker.com/r/bkimminich/juice-shop/) (Scroll down to the section on docker):

Juice Shop Docker

As you can see, there are only 4 steps to getting up and running with Docker. The first step is to install Docker. I won’t cover that here, but make sure you do have it installed before continuing on.

The next step is to pull the Juice-Shop docker container. This container is all set up and configured to run the Juice-Shop. No configurations necessary. To do this enter the command: docker pull bkimminich/juice-shop

Docker Install Step 2

The next step is to run the container. It is performed by simply running the following command: docker run –rm -p 3000:3000 bkimminich/juice-shop

Docker Install Step 3

As you can see, the juice shop is up and running, listening on port 3000. Port 3000 was specified when we called run passing in the -p option. ** If you get an error about the container not being able to start up, try restarting docker. I ran into this a few different times and a docker restart resolved the issue.

If everything is running as expected, we should be able to browse to http://localhost:3000 and access the Juice Shop as shown below:

JuiceShop Running

The Juice Shop has a lot of vulnerabilities in it. It is a great way to learn more about how to exploit some of these vulnerabilities and test your skills. If you have little knowledge of application security vulnerabilities or the OWASP Top 10 check out our training courses we have available:

Please remember that hacking is illegal. If you want to learn more about application security and test your skills, do it responsibly and use great applications like the Juice Shop as your targets.

by Leave a Comment

ImageMagick – Take-aways

Do your applications accept file uploads? More specifically, image uploads? Do you use a site that allows you to upload images? If you haven’t been following the news lately, there was recently a few vulnerabilities found in the ImageMagick image library. This library is very common in websites to perform image processing. The vulnerability allows remote code execution (RCE) on the web server, which is very dangerous. For more specific details on the vulnerability itself, check out this post on the Sucuri Blog.

There are a few things I wanted to focus on that are less about ImageMagick and more focused on better security solutions.

Application Inventory

I know, enough already. I get it, I mention application inventory all the time. It is with good reason. We rely heavily on 3rd part components just like ImageMagick and there are bound to be security flaws identified in them. Some may be less critical, while others demanding the highest priority. The issue at hand is that we cannot defend against the unknown. In this case, even if we are aware of a vulnerability, it doesn’t help us if we are not aware we use the vulnerable component. Time is important, especially when it comes to critical type issues. You need to be able to quickly determine if your company uses the vulnerable component, which apps are effected, and what types of data resides in those systems. Performing fire drills for every vulnerability announced is very inefficient. Being able to quickly identify the effected areas allows for a better understanding of any risk changes.

Permissions

When you are configuring your applications, think about the type of permissions the application has on the server. Does it have the ability to write to specific folders, execute specific files, read data, etc.? Does the application run as an administrator with full rights? To help reduce the attack surface we must understand what the app needs to do, and then make sure the permissions are aligned with those needs. In this case, the files may be stored on the file system to be used later so write permissions may be required. It is still possible to limit those write permissions to specific folders and even limiting execution permissions.

Application Configuration

How you design and configure your application plays a significant role in how security is handled. In regards to allowing file uploads, how do you handle storing the files? Are they on the file system or in the database? How are features configured? In the case of ImageMagick, there are configuration settings that can be set to limit the vulnerabilities. Make sure that you are only accepting file types that are needed and discarding others. These configurations can take many forms, but will help provide security when they are truly understood.

Importance of Input Validation

The vulnerability in ImageMagick highlights the importance of sanitizing input and performing solid validation. In this case, the file name is not properly handled which allows an attacker to run unintended commands. We have to check to make sure that the data passed to our applications is what we are expecting. If it is not, then it must be discarded.

This is not the last time we will see a vulnerable component that is used by lots of applications. It is part of the risk of using external components. We can do more on our side to make sure that we know what we are using and preparing for the event that something goes wrong. Take the time to understand your applications and think about the different ways security may be effected.

by Leave a Comment

Reliance on 3rd Party Components

It was just recently announced that Apple will no longer be supporting QuickTime for Windows. Just like any other software, when support has ended, the software becomes a security risk. As a matter of fact, there are current known vulnerabilities in QuickTime that will never get patched. The Department of Homeland Security has an alert recommending removal of QuickTime for Windows.

For users, it may seem simple: Uninstall QuickTime from your Windows system. But wait.. what about software they rely on that may require quicktime? There are times when our users are locked into some technologies because of the software we create. How does our decision to use a specific technology have an effect on our end users when it comes to security?

If you have created an application that relies on the installation of QuickTime for Windows this creates somewhat of an issue. It can be very difficult to justify your position to end users to continue using a component that is not only known vulnerable, but is also past the end of life. This brings up a few things to consider when using third party components in our solutions.

Why use the component/technology?

The first question to ask is why do we need this component or technology. Is this a small feature within our application or does our entire business model rely on this. What benefit are we getting by using this component. Are there multiple components by different sources? What process was used to pick the used component? Did you look at the history of the creator, the reviews from other users, how active development is, etc.? When picking a component, more is required than just picking the one with the prettiest marketing page.

How do we handle Updates?

The number of breaches and security vulnerabilities documented is at an all time high. You need to be prepared for the event that there are updates, most likely critical, to the component. How will you handle these updates. What type of process will be in place to make sure that the application is compatible with all of these updates so the user is not forced to use an out-dated version? What would you do if the update removed a critical feature your application relies upon?

What if the component is discontinued?

Handling the updates and patches is one thing, but what happens if the component becomes end of life? When the component is no longer supported there is a greater possibility of security risks around it that will not get fixed. In most situations this will probably lead to the decision to stop using that component. I know, this seems like something we don’t want to think about, but it is critical that all of these possibilities are understood.

We use components in almost any software that we create. We rely on these components. Taking the time to create a process around how these components are selected and how they are maintained will help reduce headache later on. We often focus on the now, forgetting about what may happen tomorrow. Take the time to think about how the component is maintained going forward and how it would effect your business if it went away one day. Will you ask your users to continue using a known vulnerable component, or will you have a plan to make the necessary changes to no longer rely on that component?