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.

Comments
Why Your Security Tools Are Exposing You to Added Risks
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
AlexMcG
AlexMcG,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/3/2016 | 8:22:58 AM
Re: Agree, but...
Hi there! We tried pretty hard to make this not seem like scare mongering. Our point here is that defense tools have bugs and we're advising people to account for that. As with the rest of security there's no real magic solution. So what we purpose is dealing with it in context. Let's take the TrendMicro bug as an example and assume some fictional enterprise has it installed everywhere.

This bug was in an extraneous feature, I don't want an AV that runs its own webserver on my host. Our advice is choose an AV that doesn't do silly stuff like that. So lets assume we can disable all those extra features, now we're left with this big chunk of C/C++ that tries to parse every file type you've never heard of that regulation says we have to keep on our hosts. Ok, if I can't get rid of it I can at least make attacking it more expensive for common bug types in C/C++ with Microsoft's EMET. Though as we've seen recently thanks to FireEye there are ways around that for dedicated attackers but attackers have to spend a lot of time to find those. How do we then deal with an attacker who is willing to do that leg work? We monitor our hosts for surprising new binaries/DLLs as attackers typically want some type of persistence.


In following that advice we have: reduced our attack surface by turning off AV features we don't need, increased the cost to attackers to attack us via bugs in the core part of the AV engine, and increased the odds that if we are successfully compromised we'll know about it. That's pretty reasonable substantive advice for how to deal with vulnerabilities in your defensive tool chain. I hope that readers don't come away with the impression that all security software is bad, I hope they come away with the idea that NO complex software is without vulnerabilities and they need to plan accordingly.
robep00
robep00,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/3/2016 | 7:39:26 AM
Re: Agree, but...
I agree with Dave and  Alex in this article.

I don't think it's about scaremongering more then accepting a hard reality. A reality that is forcing changes in the approach to security as we are writing about it.

For example, file analysis could be performed off site instead of on the host like some anti-virus engines or security solutions are already doing. By limiting and making the security product as lightweight as possible, the increase in attack surface is minimal compared to the potential increase in security posture.

 
Whoopty
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
3/3/2016 | 7:01:24 AM
Agree, but...
As much as I agree with this post and it's important that people realise anti-virus is not a set-it-and-forget-it tool, this gives us a lot of concerns without much in the way of a meaningful solution. It smells like scaremongering. 

The last thing we want is people thinking that it would be better to do without security software altogether.

Does anyone have a good solution to AV? Even if international alternatives are a bad idea, US and UK made security software is just as beholden to intelligence agencies there as the foreign alternatives are.


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-42247
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
pfSense v2.5.2 was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the browser.php component. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a file name.
CVE-2022-41443
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
phpipam v1.5.0 was discovered to contain a header injection vulnerability via the component /admin/subnets/ripe-query.php.
CVE-2022-33882
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
Under certain conditions, an attacker could create an unintended sphere of control through a vulnerability present in file delete operation in Autodesk desktop app (ADA). An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2022-42306
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 8.2 and related Veritas products. An attacker with local access can send a crafted packet to pbx_exchange during registration and cause a NULL pointer exception, effectively crashing the pbx_exchange process.
CVE-2022-42307
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 10.0.0.1 and related Veritas products. The NetBackup Primary server is vulnerable to an XML External Entity (XXE) Injection attack through the DiscoveryService service.