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.

Perimeter

9/1/2010
08:30 AM
John H. Sawyer
John H. Sawyer
Commentary
50%
50%

Finding Exposed Devices On Your Network

When browsing through SHODAN, it never ceases to amaze me what I can find. How is it that people think it's okay to leave their printers, routers, fiber channel switches, and industrial control systems completely open to the Internet?

When browsing through SHODAN, it never ceases to amaze me what I can find. How is it that people think it's okay to leave their printers, routers, fiber channel switches, and industrial control systems completely open to the Internet?In case you're not sure what SHODAN is, I've mentioned SHODAN a few times in previous articles and blogs like "Gaining A Foothold By Exploiting VxWorks Vulns." It's been referred to as a rainbow table for Internet-accessible computers because it provides a searchable index of service banners retrieved from HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, SSH, and telnet services on the Internet without the need to do any of your own scanning.

When I was looking at the VxWorks vulnerability, I found vulnerable printers, network switches, fiber channel switches, and industrial control systems (or SCADA) equipment through some simple searches that are mentioned in this blog.

So I'm left wondering who thought it was a good idea to put these devices on the Internet without some sort of protection in place. Is there no change management procedures at these organizations where someone should be monitoring what's taking place on the network? Surely someone has to provision the public IP for use for the devices. Why aren't they asking what the IP will be used for and if the device is being locked down?

Sure, you can use SHODAN to check your netblocks for exposed devices that you might not be aware of, but why not be a little more proactive? Isn't proactive security better than reactive security? Or more to the point, wouldn't you rather find out about a new exposed device on you network before an attacker does?

There are a couple ways to go about this. The first is setting up some simple network scans using Nmap. It could be done daily or weekly, but I wouldn't recommend going as long as a month in between scans. Be sure to set up the scans to save the output to the Nmap XML format. Once you have more than one scan, you can use the Ndiff utility to compare the two scans and determine if there are any state changes for hosts, ports, service versions, operating systems, and the output of scripts.

The Nmap route is cheap and easy to implement, but if you have a nice netflow analysis solution like Lancope's StealthWatch, it can be done even easier. All of the netflow monitoring tools I've seen have an alert option that will notify admins when a new host is seen communicating on the network. I've also seen alerts for when a host begins acting as a server for the first time. For example, if a host is on the network and begins accepting and responding to requests on TCP port 443 for the first time, admins will receive an alert.

Security teams are often the last ones to know when new systems are brought online, but they don't have to be. Using the tools above, security can know when new systems show up on the network and take appropriate actions such as a vulnerability scan, and confirm that the device is authorized and not some rogue wireless router an employee decided to plug in so they could use their new iPad.

John H. Sawyer is a senior security engineer on the IT Security Team at the University of Florida. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are his own and do not represent the views and opinions of the UF IT Security Team or the University of Florida. When John's not fighting flaming, malware-infested machines or performing autopsies on blitzed boxes, he can usually be found hanging with his family, bouncing a baby on one knee and balancing a laptop on the other. Special to Dark Reading.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Florida Town Pays $600K to Ransomware Operators
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/20/2019
Pledges to Not Pay Ransomware Hit Reality
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  6/21/2019
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-2019-12949
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-25
In pfSense 2.4.4-p2 and 2.4.4-p3, if it is possible to trick an authenticated administrator into clicking on a button on a phishing page, an attacker can leverage XSS to upload arbitrary executable code, via diag_command.php and rrd_fetch_json.php (timePeriod parameter), to a server. Then, the remot...
CVE-2019-12957
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-25
In Xpdf 4.01.01, a buffer over-read could be triggered in FoFiType1C::convertToType1 in fofi/FoFiType1C.cc when the index number is larger than the charset array bounds. It can, for example, be triggered by sending a crafted PDF document to the pdftops tool. It allows an attacker to use a crafted pd...
CVE-2019-12958
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-25
In Xpdf 4.01.01, a heap-based buffer over-read could be triggered in FoFiType1C::convertToType0 in fofi/FoFiType1C.cc when it is trying to access the second privateDicts array element, because the privateDicts array has only one element allocated.
CVE-2019-12951
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-24
An issue was discovered in Mongoose before 6.15. The parse_mqtt() function in mg_mqtt.c has a critical heap-based buffer overflow.
CVE-2019-10689
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-24
VVX products using UCS software version 5.9.2 and earlier with Better Together over Ethernet Connector (BToE) application version 3.9.1 and earlier provides insufficient authentication between the BToE application and the BToE component, resulting in leakage of sensitive information.