07:45 PM

Automation Demands Tighter VM Security

Plan to let hypervisors spin up new virtual machines on their own? Then you'd better lock them down.

From a security standpoint, basic server hypervisors have a lot of intrinsic strength. They work at a very low level within a given piece of hardware. They're hardened and task-specific, and the code base is relatively small. And it's a good thing, because the hypervisor enjoys a privileged degree of access to guest operating systems, especially via OS-native virtual machine tools, which allow the hypervisor all sorts of power. Compromising the hypervisor gives complete and total access to all of the data structures that comprise the system itself. But when we asked about hypervisor security, only 64% of respondents to our survey cited concern about this issue. That leaves a staggering 36%--greater than one-third of respondents--who have their heads in the sand. If a system runs code, it can be compromised, and if that code is running everywhere, there's a huge incentive to break it. There have been no fewer than 10 major hypervisor vulnerabilities disclosed this year alone, affecting a variety of platforms. Exploits range from remote code execution vulnerabilities (the most severe) to denial of service, and while VMware has yet to disclose a remote code execution vulnerability, it's only a matter of time. Earlier this year, for example, outdated source code for VMware's ESX hypervisor was posted.

We still see companies with a long way to go to integrate hypervisor awareness into their overall security mandates. The good news is that vendors have been preparing for this eventuality for some time, as we discuss in our full report. Also, about half of survey respondents (48%) have a hypervisor-aware security product in place. An additional 32% plan to adopt one.

Go to the main story:
A Shaky Virtual Stack

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
Dark Reading Tech Digest September 7, 2015
Some security flaws go beyond simple app vulnerabilities. Have you checked for these?
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
Published: 2015-10-09
Simple Streams (simplestreams) does not properly verify the GPG signatures of disk image files, which allows remote mirror servers to spoof disk images and have unspecified other impact via a 403 (aka Forbidden) response.

Published: 2015-10-09
The Telephony component in Apple OS X before 10.11, when the Continuity feature is enabled, allows local users to bypass intended telephone-call restrictions via unspecified vectors.

Published: 2015-10-09
IcedTea-Web before 1.5.3 and 1.6.x before 1.6.1 does not properly sanitize applet URLs, which allows remote attackers to inject applets into the .appletTrustSettings configuration file and bypass user approval to execute the applet via a crafted web page, possibly related to line breaks.

Published: 2015-10-09
IcedTea-Web before 1.5.3 and 1.6.x before 1.6.1 does not properly determine the origin of unsigned applets, which allows remote attackers to bypass the approval process or trick users into approving applet execution via a crafted web page.

Published: 2015-10-09
The Safari Extensions implementation in Apple Safari before 9 does not require user confirmation before replacing an installed extension, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
What can the information security industry do to solve the IoT security problem? Learn more and join the conversation on the next episode of Dark Reading Radio.