Attacks/Breaches
10/31/2012
07:45 PM
50%
50%

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 Earlier this year, for example, outdated source code for VMware's ESX hypervisor was posted.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
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-3407
Published: 2014-11-27
The SSL VPN implementation in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software 9.3(.2) and earlier does not properly allocate memory blocks during HTTP packet handling, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via crafted packets, aka Bug ID CSCuq68888.

CVE-2014-4829
Published: 2014-11-27
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests tha...

CVE-2014-4831
Published: 2014-11-27
IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allow remote attackers to hijack sessions via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-4832
Published: 2014-11-27
IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive cookie information by sniffing the network during an HTTP session.

CVE-2014-4883
Published: 2014-11-27
resolv.c in the DNS resolver in uIP, and dns.c in the DNS resolver in lwIP 1.4.1 and earlier, does not use random values for ID fields and source ports of DNS query packets, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to conduct cache-poisoning attacks via spoofed reply packets.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?