Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Application Security

10/17/2017
05:30 PM
50%
50%

Reuters: Microsoft's 2013 Breach Hit Bug Repository, Insiders Say

Five anonymous former Microsoft employees tell Reuters that Microsoft's database of internally discovered vulnerabilities was compromised in 2013, but Microsoft will not confirm it occurred.

In early 2013, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter all reported being compromised by the same threat group, via a Java exploit on Mac endpoints. Until today, however, there were no indications that the intrusion at Microsoft included a compromise of its vulnerability database. According to a Reuters exclusive, five anonymous former employees now say that this bug repository was indeed compromised.

If attackers did access a database that could have included yet-unpatched critical vulnerabilities, it could have enabled the attackers to launch more effective, dangerous campaigns against other targets. A 2015 Mozilla breach that exposed 10 unpatched vulnerabilities, for example, resulted in an attack on Firefox users; Mozilla subsequently disclosed the attack. 

However, Microsoft has not confirmed that the 2013 breach led to attacks on users of Microsoft products, nor have they confirmed the breach impacted the bug repository at all.   

Today, a Microsoft spokesperson told Dark Reading in an emailed statement:

“In February 2013, we commented on the discovery of malware, similar to that found by other companies at the time, on a small number of computers including some in our Mac business unit. Our investigation found no evidence of information being stolen and used in subsequent attacks.” 

In February 2013, in a Microsoft Technet blog, Matt Thomlinson, then general manager of Trusted Platform Security, wrote:

"As reported by Facebook and Apple, Microsoft can confirm that we also recently experienced a similar security intrusion. 

Consistent with our security response practices, we chose not to make a statement during the initial information gathering process. During our investigation, we found a small number of computers, including some in our Mac business unit, that were infected by malicious software using techniques similar to those documented by other organizations. We have no evidence of customer data being affected and our investigation is ongoing."  

According to the Reuters report, the exposed bugs were patched within months and "Microsoft tightened up security after the breach, the former employees said, walling the [vulnerability] database off from the corporate network and requiring two authentications for access."

"It sounds like they responded to the breach in a reasonable fashion," says Chris Eng, vice president of research at application security company Veracode, "both in terms of prioritizing fixes and monitoring for real-world exploitation of the leaked vulnerability information." 

[Chris Eng will be speaking about "Security, Application Development, and DevOps" at Dark Reading's upcoming INsecurity conference, Nov. 29-30 at the Gaylord National Harbor in Maryland.]

Yet, according to the Reuters report, some former employees feel that the company relies too heavily on automated crash reports to determine whether or not vulnerabilities have been used in sophisticated attacks. 

Eng cautions against making comparisons between this event and the National Security Agency breach of exploit tools that led to the outbreak of WannaCry infections earlier this year.

"Comparing the theft of vulnerability reports to the theft of exploits (the NSA situation) is apples and oranges," says Eng. "Obtaining information on a given vulnerability is not the same as obtaining a reliable, working exploit. The attackers would have had to determine which of the bugs were actually security-related, then figure out which ones were exploitable, then develop exploits for them, each of which can take months."

Nevertheless, a database or bug tracking system "is as essential to protect as customer data,
 says Chris Goettl, product manager at asset and patch management firm Ivanti. "If a system holds information that can put your customers at risk. as in this case, it would be one you would want to focus additional security controls and limit access to."

"Disclosure of data from a bug tracking system is a high concern," says Goettl. "With access to a bug system where developers may have deconstructed an issue and even proposed resolutions an attacker would gain considerable insight into how to exploit those systems or applications. Even more concerning is the possibility that a bug could be resolved in currently supported products at the time, older versions could have the same flaws and not have been slated for resolution because they were no longer being supported."

For more information, see Reuters.  

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity agenda here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Data Leak Week: Billions of Sensitive Files Exposed Online
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/10/2019
Lessons from the NSA: Know Your Assets
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  12/12/2019
4 Tips to Run Fast in the Face of Digital Transformation
Shane Buckley, President & Chief Operating Officer, Gigamon,  12/9/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-5252
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-14
There is an improper authentication vulnerability in Huawei smartphones (Y9, Honor 8X, Honor 9 Lite, Honor 9i, Y6 Pro). The applock does not perform a sufficient authentication in a rare condition. Successful exploit could allow the attacker to use the application locked by applock in an instant.
CVE-2019-5235
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-14
Some Huawei smart phones have a null pointer dereference vulnerability. An attacker crafts specific packets and sends to the affected product to exploit this vulnerability. Successful exploitation may cause the affected phone to be abnormal.
CVE-2019-5264
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
There is an information disclosure vulnerability in certain Huawei smartphones (Mate 10;Mate 10 Pro;Honor V10;Changxiang 7S;P-smart;Changxiang 8 Plus;Y9 2018;Honor 9 Lite;Honor 9i;Mate 9). The software does not properly handle certain information of applications locked by applock in a rare condition...
CVE-2019-5277
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Huawei CloudUSM-EUA V600R006C10;V600R019C00 have an information leak vulnerability. Due to improper configuration, the attacker may cause information leak by successful exploitation.
CVE-2019-5254
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Certain Huawei products (AP2000;IPS Module;NGFW Module;NIP6300;NIP6600;NIP6800;S5700;SVN5600;SVN5800;SVN5800-C;SeMG9811;Secospace AntiDDoS8000;Secospace USG6300;Secospace USG6500;Secospace USG6600;USG6000V;eSpace U1981) have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. An attacker who logs in to the board m...