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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

3/8/2017
02:30 PM
Morey Haber
Morey Haber
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

In a Cybersecurity Vendor War, the End User Loses

When vulnerability information is disclosed without a patch available, users are the ones really being punished.

Rarely do you see corporations clash over vulnerability disclosures. It's almost an unwritten rule that a business wouldn't participate in improper vulnerability disclosures, but Google has decided to go head-to-head with Microsoft in the release of information after 90 days of initial notification, even though Microsoft has acknowledged the flaw and scheduled an update.

Although this type of activity is common for researchers, it looks like Google has decided to pick a fight with Redmond and wants vulnerabilities patched faster. In addition, Google went on the offensive, disclosing it successfully and reliably cracked SHA1 and discovered a major coding flaw dubbed Cloudbleed in Cloudflare hosting services. The latter is responsible for the leakage of sensitive data across websites that are hosted by Cloudflare services.

These activities are rather unusual for a company that's not primarily focused on security and only emphasize the disclosure of unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows. Early last month, Google disclosed an unpatched vulnerability in the Windows Graphic Device Interface (GDI), and later in February another (CVE-2017-0037) in Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer that could lead to arbitrary code execution — both of which are 90 days past due since disclosure. Although most say it's appropriate to wait 90 days after submitting a vulnerability, it's unusual for companies to release information when the period ends and acknowledge a patch is coming.

What makes this disclosure so interesting, and potentially a battle between the two giant software organizations, is the disclosure of proof-of-concept code related to the latest browser vulnerabilities in Edge and IE that could allow hackers to refine the exploit and escalate privileges on targeted systems. That target base includes Windows 7, 8.1, and 10 for both 32- and 64-bit systems. As a zero-day, unpatched vulnerability, it's just a matter of time before this weakness becomes weaponized.

Microsoft delayed February's Patch Tuesday fix until March, making the mainstream distribution of patches unavailable to the masses. In fact, this adds to the Microsoft SMB flaws that are already in the wild (disclosed February 3) with exploit code, making it a bad first quarter at Redmond for zero-day vulnerabilities.

Browser War or Something Else?
It has been awhile since Microsoft has received so much negative press around security flaws at the hands of a competing corporation. Why Google has taken such a provocative stance is unclear, but the recommendation from other security professionals to mitigate the risks are very clear: replace Internet Explorer and Edge with another vendor's products to mitigate the risk. Is Google's approach an aggressive campaign to continue the browser wars? It may be very possible or just a strict interpretation of the industry 90-day standard for notification, disclosure, and patch remediation.

In the end, the end user is the one that suffers. Zero days are out in the wild, proof-of-concept exploits are available to hackers, and organizations are left finding suitable mitigations for the threats until patches are released, tested, and deployed. Businesses can only identify and document the risks using vulnerability assessment solutions and minimize the threats with application control and other proven security technologies.

Compliance regimes such as PCI should take note as well. There is no remediation path, and now vulnerabilities are over 90 days old from initial notification to the manufacturer. The clock is ticking for regulatory incompliance. We can only hope Patch Tuesday in March (scheduled for March 14) addresses all of these problems and doesn't give hackers more time to refine their exploits.

It will be interesting to watch if Google decides to release more vulnerability information against other vendors and whether other organizations follow suit with research after 90 days of have passed. It could be just the start of a new cyber security battle. The results could be faster patches or a gold mine for attackers for public exploits.

Related Content:

With more than 20 years of IT industry experience and author of Privileged Attack Vectors and Asset Attack Vectors, Morey Haber joined BeyondTrust in 2012 as a part of the eEye Digital Security acquisition. He currently oversees the vision for BeyondTrust technology ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
technicalaccademy
50%
50%
technicalaccademy,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/23/2017 | 1:27:15 AM
Technologynews
Thanks for sharing the cybersecurity related news.it is very help ful for every one because latest updates are known through this site
technicalaccademy
50%
50%
technicalaccademy,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/23/2017 | 1:26:56 AM
Technologynews
Thanks for sharing the cybersecurity related news.it is very help ful for every one because latest updates are known through this site
technicalaccademy
50%
50%
technicalaccademy,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/23/2017 | 1:25:10 AM
Technologynews
Thanks for sharing the cybersecurity related news.it is very help ful for the latest updates
Overcoming the Challenge of Shorter Certificate Lifespans
Mike Cooper, Founder & CEO of Revocent,  10/15/2020
7 Tips for Choosing Security Metrics That Matter
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  10/19/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-27605
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
BigBlueButton through 2.2.8 uses Ghostscript for processing of uploaded EPS documents, and consequently may be subject to attacks related to a "schwache Sandbox."
CVE-2020-27606
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
BigBlueButton before 2.2.8 (or earlier) does not set the secure flag for the session cookie in an https session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an http session.
CVE-2020-27607
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
In BigBlueButton before 2.2.8 (or earlier), the client-side Mute button only signifies that the server should stop accepting audio data from the client. It does not directly configure the client to stop sending audio data to the server, and thus a modified server could store the audio data and/or tr...
CVE-2020-27608
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
In BigBlueButton before 2.2.8 (or earlier), uploaded presentations are sent to clients without a Content-Type header, which allows XSS, as demonstrated by a .png file extension for an HTML document.
CVE-2020-27609
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-21
BigBlueButton through 2.2.8 records a video meeting despite the deactivation of video recording in the user interface. This may result in data storage beyond what is authorized for a specific meeting topic or participant.