Vulnerabilities / Threats

2/9/2017
04:15 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Hacking The Penetration Test

Penetration testers rarely get spotted, according to a Rapid7 report analyzing its real-world engagements.

It's not a good sign when an organization undergoing a penetration test can't detect the operation probing and infiltrating its systems and network.

In a new report by Rapid7 that pulls back the covers on penetration test engagements the company has executed, two thirds of these engagements weren't discovered at all by the organization being tested. That's especially concerning because pen tests tend to be short-term, rapid-fire - and sometimes loud – operations, unlike the low-and-slow attacks by seasoned cyberattackers.

Tod Beardsley, research director at Rapid7, says pen tests typically run a week to 10 days, so researchers on the case basically throw as much as they can at the target fairly quickly, so it's more likely they'd be detected by the client's security tools and team. "It's kind of like you run in and break everything you can. That's the nature of the business, you have a week or 10 days," he says. "But there's not even detection [of a pen test] a third of the time which is bad."

"If you can't detect a penetration test, it seems it would be impossible to detect a real cybercriminal or cyber espionage" attack, Beardsley says.

Part of the problem is that organizations typically can't and don't daily track their event logs closely, he says, and don't necessarily have a handle on what's normal network activity. "It's kind of a UI failure. We have security tools that are hard to use in the security industry; I don't think it's a matter of instrumentation. It's more a matter of knowing what's the norm for your network."

Rapid7 took the results of 128 penetration tests it launched in the fourth quarter of 2016 in order to "demystify" penetration testing and to gauge just how much pen testers are getting away with due to security woes in organizations.

Penetration testing is gradually evolving. The rise in bug bounty programs in some cases has overshadowed and even shaped the nature of some pen testing, but even bug bounty proponents maintain that pen testing isn't going anywhere.

Alex Rice, co-founder and CEO of bug bounty firm HackerOne, says many organizations with bug bounty programs end up shifting the focus of their pen tests. "They start doing more penetration tests, with more narrow scope," Rice said in a recent interview with Dark Reading. "They learn and apply resources to areas lit up by a bug bounty program."

He says most veteran pen testers prefer the more focused and challenging engagements, anyway. "We find most of the good ones would rather spend the entire engagement focusing on very hard security problems to solve," Rice says. "It's a $300-an-hour waste of their talent and ability if" those pen testers aren't working on specific and tougher security issues, he says.

Almost Too Easy

Surprisingly, Rapid7's pen testers in most cases didn't have to look too deeply for holes to exploit: two-thirds of the time, pen testers were able to find and exploit vulnerabilities in the client's systems. And some 67% of the clients sported network misconfiguration issues. All in all, the pen testers were able to successfully "hack" their clients 80% of the time, either via unfixed vulnerabilities or configuration mistakes. Among the bugs they found were the usual suspects: cross-site request forgery (22.7%), SMB relaying (20.3%), (cross-site scripting (18.8%), broadcast name resolution (14.8%) as well as a some SQL injection, denial-of-service, and other web-type flaws, the report says.

In one pen test of a healthcare firm, Rapid7's team was able to exploit unrelated Web application flaws together to infiltrate the client's internal, back-end systems: first a CSRF flaw in a public Web application, giving them an entrée to create an account on the server. They then found a persistent XSS flaw that they employed to steal the administrator's session token and impersonate him. That led them to find in an insufficient validation flaw in the Web app that allowed them to gain access to the Web server's operating system and ultimately get full shell access on the server and internal network.

"That they were leveraging cross-site scripting, CSRF [and another flaw] to get internal network access: that was shocking to me," Beardsley says. "I was surprised to see vulnerabilities play such a large part of pen testing."

Related Content:

 

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Hacked IV Pumps and Digital Smart Pens Can Lead to Data Breaches
Dawn Kawamoto, Associate Editor, Dark Reading,  12/4/2017
Tips for Writing Better Infosec Job Descriptions
Kelly Sheridan, Associate Editor, Dark Reading,  12/4/2017
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Managing Cyber-Risk
An online breach could have a huge impact on your organization. Here are some strategies for measuring and managing that risk.
Flash Poll
The State of Ransomware
The State of Ransomware
Ransomware has become one of the most prevalent new cybersecurity threats faced by today's enterprises. This new report from Dark Reading includes feedback from IT and IT security professionals about their organization's ransomware experiences, defense plans, and malware challenges. Find out what they had to say!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.