Vulnerabilities / Threats

2/27/2019
05:52 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

More Than 22,000 Vulns Were Disclosed in 2018, 27% Without Fixes

As in previous years, input validation vulnerabilities accounted for a substantial proportion of total, Risk Based Security report shows.

The number of security vulnerabilities present in web applications and other software shows little signs of coming down anytime soon.

A new report from Risk Based Security (RBS) shows that a total of 22,022 security vulnerabilities were disclosed in 2018. The number is projected to increase substantially once vulnerabilities that were disclosed after the report was compiled are added to the total. Last year for instance RBS initially reported a total of 20,832 vulnerabilities. It later revised that figure to 22,230 after accounting for flaws in 2017 that were disclosed after the report was ready.

The main takeaway for enterprises is to remain vigilant, says Brian Martin, vice president of vulnerability intelligence at RBS. "Vulnerabilities are still being disclosed in high numbers, and every type of software is impacted," he notes. "Organizations, regardless of size, need to be aware of the vulnerabilities and constantly enhance their triage process."

As has been the case in recent years, web-related vulnerabilities accounted for nearly half (47.9%) of all reported security flaws in 2018. Some 27.5% were vulnerabilities tied to access authentication and 3.5% were classified as SCADA vulnerabilities—a doubling from 2017.

Input validation vulnerabilities—such as SQL injection errors, cross-site scripting, buffer overflow and command injection—once again accounted for a substantial majority of disclosed bugs in 2018. More than two-thirds of reported vulnerabilities (67.7%) last year were related to insufficient or improper validation of input suggesting that developers are still struggling to address an issue that has topped OWASPs list of top 10 vulnerabilities for a long time. Bug bounty programs, including those managed by vendors accounted for almost 8% of reported vulnerabilities in 2018, compared to just 5.8% the year before.

Of the total number of disclosed bugs last year, approximately 33% received a severity rating of seven above. Nearly one-third of them had public exploits available and slightly more than half were remotely exploitable. But, for the third year in a row, software vulnerabilities with a severity rating of between 9 and 10—the highest risk category—declined as a proportion to 13.6% of the overall total.

The reason for it could simply be that researchers are publishing a higher percentage of lower-risk vulnerabilities than before, Martin says. "If more researchers publish XSS, CSRF, or path disclosures—all considerably lower than 9.0—that could cause the percentage of lower-scored vulnerabilities to increase," even as the actual number of high-risk flaws increase.

It is also likely that some high-severity security vulnerabilities are also being deliberately kept quiet, though that number is likely insignificant, Martin says. "While governments do keep some 0-day vulnerabilities that are typically 9.3 or 10.0 scores, there has been no indication that they are sitting on hundreds of them at any given time. It could be the case, but we only have a few samples to go off," he says.

Significantly, RBS' report shows that organizations relying solely on the CVE / National Vulnerability Database (NVD) for their vulnerability information are missing a substantial number of bugs. In total, RBS had 6,780 more vulnerabilities in its database compared to the NVD. Of that number, nearly 46% had a severity rating of 7 or higher. "We have a very different mindset and philosophy when it comes to aggregating vulnerabilities," Martin explains. "We actually go looking for the vulnerabilities," rather than waiting for bugs to be reported, he notes. Others have noted the same issue. In 2017, research conducted by Recorded Future showed that more than 75% of vulnerabilities are disclosed online publicly before the NVD included them in its database.

Troublingly for organizations, RBS' data showed that nearly three-in-10 flaws reported in 2018 (27.1%) had no known or available fixes. That statistic highlights the reason why organizations need to have a defense-in-depth model, Martin notes. The goal should be to make vulnerable systems more difficult to access using approaches like access control lists, network segregation and technologies such as IDS and IPS, he said.

Related Content:

  

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
ChadF3
50%
50%
ChadF3,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/4/2019 | 5:34:35 PM
Not about validation
Issues like SQL/script injection and XSS are not really a problem with input validation, but a lack of proper quoting/escaping of arbatrary data during its use. Yes, input validation can limit/mitigate some attacks, but this also tightly couples the input code and processing code (e.g. the input side assumes SQL queries are used at some point, and the query side code assumes input validation have done for all potential sources).

In general, providing an input with an apostrophe should be considered valid, even if the backend uses this value in an SQL query (as the real data being search may have such values, e.g. Name: O'Neill). If I include the text "<grin>" with-in some online forum post/comment, it shouldn't be rejected/removed for no-HTML input fields, but be treated as verbatuim text that is properly escaped in output HTML.

Input validation should normally only be done for specific business logic (e.g. usernames are limited to ASCII letters/numbers and must start with a letter), or general sanity checks (e.g. only ASCII; only valid UTF-8 encoded strings; doesn't contain invalid UNICODE composed sequences; no embedded NUL characters [when using length specified strings]).
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/28/2019 | 6:31:14 PM
No fixes
Moreover, researchers are often incentivized against responsible disclosure simply because the companies won't even listen to them and give them the time of day -- unless it gets national media attention. (Examples: Panera, Apple FaceTime bug, Facebook, etc.)
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
BEC Scammer Pleads Guilty
Dark Reading Staff 3/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-6149
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-18
An unquoted search path vulnerability was identified in Lenovo Dynamic Power Reduction Utility prior to version 2.2.2.0 that could allow a malicious user with local access to execute code with administrative privileges.
CVE-2018-15509
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-18
Five9 Agent Desktop Plus 10.0.70 has Incorrect Access Control (issue 2 of 2).
CVE-2018-20806
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-17
Phamm (aka PHP LDAP Virtual Hosting Manager) 0.6.8 allows XSS via the login page (the /public/main.php action parameter).
CVE-2019-5616
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-15
CircuitWerkes Sicon-8, a hardware device used for managing electrical devices, ships with a web-based front-end controller and implements an authentication mechanism in JavaScript that is run in the context of a user's web browser.
CVE-2018-17882
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-15
An Integer overflow vulnerability exists in the batchTransfer function of a smart contract implementation for CryptoBotsBattle (CBTB), an Ethereum token. This vulnerability could be used by an attacker to create an arbitrary amount of tokens for any user.