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

8/26/2010
03:27 PM
David Maynor
David Maynor
Commentary
50%
50%

The Case For Zero-Day Penetration Testing

Penetration testing is a tightrope act where you balance existing knowledge with a mixture of freshly released- and zero-day knowledge. As a penetration tester, I often hear the argument that zero-day attacks do not belong in a test, that there is no time to prepare for them, so of course the target will be compromised. But I have the exact opposite philosophy: zero-day testing should occur to gauge an organization's response to such an attack. If mitigating controls are in place, an unknown att

Penetration testing is a tightrope act where you balance existing knowledge with a mixture of freshly released- and zero-day knowledge. As a penetration tester, I often hear the argument that zero-day attacks do not belong in a test, that there is no time to prepare for them, so of course the target will be compromised. But I have the exact opposite philosophy: zero-day testing should occur to gauge an organization's response to such an attack. If mitigating controls are in place, an unknown attack should gain some level of access -- but not compromise the entire organization. This is the real value of penetration testing.My thoughts here on testing were more of a set-up to discuss an attack that was recently released. HD Moore of Rapid7 unleashed a devastating attack that can force a number of different applications to load malicious DLLs at startup. This is a trivial attack to execute and can give an attacker complete control of a victim's machine. There is a Microsoft hotfix for this, but I can assume that has been sparsely applied. This makes an enterprise ripe for compromise by a penetration tester.

The question I have been asked is if a tester uses this exploit and gains control of a machine, what does it mean? Does it mean your security is lacking, or that your update process is slow an inadequate? To me, it just means you have room for growth.

Take an example of using the Webdav exploit in a phishing attack where I am able to compromise a workstation. If I am able to do nothing else but poke around the workstation, gather network traffic, and attempt to trick other people into falling victim to the attack, then mitigating controls are working. If I am able to access to workstation and elevate myself to domain admin, add myself to the payroll, and write myself a check, multiple controls have failed.

The detractors that don't want these new attacks used in tests are often the ones surprised when a real attacker will use them in the wild. Good testing means using everything at your disposal, putting shackles on your tester just means you are putting shackles on your organization's ability to improve. So the "no zero day" penetration-test philosophy is about as useful as a "gun-free zone" at protection.

David Maynor is CTO of Errata Security. Special to Dark Reading

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 5/28/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Can you smell me now?
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11844
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
There is an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Management Automation (SMA) product affecting version 2018.05 to 2020.02. The vulnerability could be exploited to provide unauthorized access to the Container Deployment Foundation.
CVE-2020-6937
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
A Denial of Service vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.8.x, 3.9.x, and 4.x released before April 7, 2020, could allow remote attackers to submit data which can lead to resource exhaustion.
CVE-2020-7648
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.72.2 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads for users who have access to Snyk's internal network by appending the URL with a fragment identifier and a whitelisted path e.g. `#package.json`
CVE-2020-7650
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker after 4.72.0 including and before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads to users with access to Snyk's internal network of any files ending in the following extensions: yaml, yml or json.
CVE-2020-7654
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Information Exposure. It logs private keys if logging level is set to DEBUG.