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

8/1/2011
02:09 PM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
50%
50%

WAFs And SQL Injection

WAFs protect databases from SQL injection for only so long

The ModSecurity site is putting on the SQL Injection Challenge. Contestants are attempting to find successful SQL injection attacks against target applications. The four sample applications are from IBM, Cenzic, HP, and Acunetix, each with a slightly different host configuration and database platform.

There are two contests within the challenge. The first test is a timed event to see who can detect the database, table, and column names behind test applications. The second test is to find a vulnerability and avoid both inbound attacks and data extrusion detection. These applications have been previously scanned for common vulnerabilities and injection attacks, and there are active Web application firewalls running.

Remember that SQL injection is an attack on a database that goes through a firewall, an application, and, in some cases, a supporting Web application firewall as well. What's also important to note here is that these "test" applications are set up to be pretty secure.

The first phase of the event has been completed, and each of the platforms were successfully compromised. On average, it took 72 hours for an attacker to break in across the various contests and against each of the four applications. The test results demonstrate that a Web application firewall (WAF) will be breached by a persistent attacker. It's not a matter of if -- it's a matter of when. The real value of WAF technology is to monitor and detect attacks so you respond to the attack. That might mean updating your WAF rules, filtering some inbound connections, double-checking that input values are properly filtered, or even taking some of your services off line.

There are a few lessons to learn here, but paramount is that you need to be monitoring activity -- and actually reviewing the logs -- if you hope to catch and react to an attack. Static defenses only last so long.

Adrian Lane is an analyst/CTO with Securosis LLC, an independent security consulting practice. Special to Dark Reading. Adrian Lane is a Security Strategist and brings over 25 years of industry experience to the Securosis team, much of it at the executive level. Adrian specializes in database security, data security, and secure software development. With experience at Ingres, Oracle, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Human Nature vs. AI: A False Dichotomy?
John McClurg, Sr. VP & CISO, BlackBerry,  11/18/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: -when I told you that our cyber-defense was from another age
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-3350
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
masqmail 0.2.21 through 0.2.30 improperly calls seteuid() in src/log.c and src/masqmail.c that results in improper privilege dropping.
CVE-2011-3352
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
Zikula 1.3.0 build #3168 and probably prior has XSS flaw due to improper sanitization of the 'themename' parameter by setting default, modifying and deleting themes. A remote attacker with Zikula administrator privilege could use this flaw to execute arbitrary HTML or web script code in the context ...
CVE-2011-3349
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
lightdm before 0.9.6 writes in .dmrc and Xauthority files using root permissions while the files are in user controlled folders. A local user can overwrite root-owned files via a symlink, which can allow possible privilege escalation.
CVE-2019-10080
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
The XMLFileLookupService in NiFi versions 1.3.0 to 1.9.2 allowed trusted users to inadvertently configure a potentially malicious XML file. The XML file has the ability to make external calls to services (via XXE) and reveal information such as the versions of Java, Jersey, and Apache that the NiFI ...
CVE-2019-10083
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
When updating a Process Group via the API in NiFi versions 1.3.0 to 1.9.2, the response to the request includes all of its contents (at the top most level, not recursively). The response included details about processors and controller services which the user may not have had read access to.