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.

Risk

8/30/2007
02:30 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Virtualization Security Heats Up

An attack that breaches the hypervisor is IT's new worst nightmare. Are you prepared?

In March, Gartner ignited the blogosphere by stating the obvious: Virtualization creates new attack opportunities. There's still lots of smoke billowing around, but only time will tell how much fire is behind it, and who's fanning the flames. Vendors of new virtualized security "appliances" clearly have a stake. But many enterprises are realizing they rushed headlong into virtualization without considering the impact on their data protection policies, so IT pros do have legitimate concerns over the amount of real estate that could be consumed by a successful attack on a hypervisor.

If you're squirming right now, the big question you want answered is: Just how risk-exposed are we today? After all, in that same report Gartner predicted that a patch-worthy hypervisor vulnerability would be discovered in a mainstream product before the end of 2008. These potential vulnerabilities fall into two broad categories. First, if you can escape a client OS and move into a host OS, you have access to the data on all the other client operating systems on that machine. And there are whole new realms of rootkits being designed to take advantage of virtualization technology.

InformationWeek Reports

"People have been working on breaking out of the guest OS in VMware for some time now," says Greg Shipley, CTO of security consulting firm Neohapsis and an InformationWeek contributor. "And having a hypervisor rootkit installed would be a serious threat to any org. However, I don't see the development of the rootkit being the big challenge."

It's the process used to deploy such a rootkit that really intrigues Shipley.

"What's going to require more effort: Researching a vulnerability that allows us to break out of a guest OS and gain control of the hypervisor layer, or going after an administrator and hijacking the credentials required to install the rootkit, just like any other application? If the task was on my plate, I know which route I'd go."

As for breaking out of the client image, consulting company Intelguardians demonstrated just such an incursion into the host OS at last month's SANSFire show. Details of the vulnerability aren't public, so it's impossible to know what the attack was successful against, but you can bet these researchers aren't the only ones in this race.

The lesson is that organizations now need to assume that a sufficiently motivated attacker is capable of such an exploit, and plan accordingly. Defense in depth and proper virtual machine layout and design, including not mixing VMs with different security postures and requirements on the same host system, are crucial.

Chart: Safe And Sound
To find out how prepared our readers are, we fielded a survey--and got some eye-popping results. We can't help thinking that the 43% saying they believe virtualized machines are just as safe and secure as traditional environments are whistling past the graveyard. Of the 384 IT operations and security professionals responding, a mere 12% have put formal strategies in place to protect their VMs.

Now, many say they're relying on their current IT policies and toolsets to manage and protect virtual servers, and that makes sense ... to a point. Virtualized environments do face the same operational threats and risks as traditional servers, but there are added gotchas, from intrahost threats to vetting third-party hypervisor driver add-ons to new checklist items for corporate information security policies.

Let's face it: If a traditional 1U server is compromised, you'll feel some amount of personal shame, regroup, assess damages, fix the problem, and move on. Most shops have strategies in place to localize internal damage, with secondary and tertiary lines of defense to safeguard against a cascade of compromised systems. Problem is, few network monitoring and management tools are up to the task of securing guest VMs. When a traditional server gets slammed and begins displaying erratic or suspicious behavior, alarms will go off. But how effective are your tried-and-true netmon tools if all machine-to-machine communication is occurring between VMs inside your "data center in a box"? How much time will the bad guys have to probe, test, and exploit intrahost weaknesses before you see what's happening?

And is the current level of high security anxiety swirling around VM-specific environments justified? It's getting there, but that's the nice thing about smelling smoke--it warns that danger's afoot.

Previous
1 of 5
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
7 Truths About BEC Scams
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  6/13/2019
DNS Firewalls Could Prevent Billions in Losses to Cybercrime
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/13/2019
Cognitive Bias Can Hamper Security Decisions
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/10/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-12855
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-16
In words.protocols.jabber.xmlstream in Twisted through 19.2.1, XMPP support did not verify certificates when used with TLS, allowing an attacker to MITM connections.
CVE-2013-7472
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-15
The "Count per Day" plugin before 3.2.6 for WordPress allows XSS via the wp-admin/?page=cpd_metaboxes daytoshow parameter.
CVE-2019-12839
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-15
In OrangeHRM 4.3.1 and before, there is an input validation error within admin/listMailConfiguration (txtSendmailPath parameter) that allows authenticated attackers to achieve arbitrary command execution.
CVE-2019-12840
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-15
In Webmin through 1.910, any user authorized to the "Package Updates" module can execute arbitrary commands with root privileges via the data parameter to update.cgi.
CVE-2019-12835
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-15
formats/xml.cpp in Leanify 0.4.3 allows for a controlled out-of-bounds write in xml_memory_writer::write via characters that require escaping.