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

9/26/2017
05:38 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Popular Mobile Trading Apps Riddled With Vulnerabilities, Security Firm Warns

IOActive's review of 21 of the most used mobile apps for investment trading shows a majority of them exposing users to various security risks.

Many of the most popular mobile investment trading applications that people use to buy and sell stocks, monitor positions, and conduct other transactions are riddled with vulnerabilities that have left them wide open to malicious abuse, according to research released today by IOActive.

Security vendor IOActive recently reviewed 21 of the most popular mobile trading applications on Google Play and Apple Store. The applications enable users to do a variety of things, including buying and selling stock, funding accounts, keeping track of equity and available buying power, and creating alerts for specific thresholds.

IOActive tested a set of 14 security controls across the applications, including support for biometric authentication, encryption, session management, client-side data management, secure data storage, sensitive data in logs, and root detection. The tests were conducted on trading apps installed on an iPhone 6 running iOS 10.3.3 and a rooted Android device running version 7.1.1 of the operating system.

The exercise showed that some of the most well known and most used mobile trading apps are even more insecure than some personal banking apps were back in 2013 when IOActive conducted similar tests, says Alejandro Hernandez, senior security consultant for IOActive.

Four of the applications for instance stored the user's password in plaintext without encryption in either a configuration file within the phone or in the logging console. Most of the tested applications did not implement two-factor authentication and required only the current password to link to bank accounts.

More than 60 percent of the tested applications stored data such as account balances and investment portfolios in unencrypted fashion or in the logging console. Someone with access to a phone containing a vulnerable trading app could use the log data for a variety of malicious purposes. "The user would never have to see the logging console, but for attackers with physical access to the phone it’s a gold mine. Data in the log files can also be read by other applications, including malware, thereby opening a way for remote data exfiltration," Hernandez says.

Several of the weaknesses that IOActive discovered in the mobile applications that it tested could only be exploited with physical access to the device on which they were installed. "On the other hand, if the phone is stolen or lost, it’s easy to extract valuable information, such as the investment portfolio and money balances," Hernandez says.

Other vulnerabilities could be remotely exploited. Two applications, for instance, used an insecure HTTP channel to transmit and receive all information, including usernames, passwords, and all trading data. "This could be exploited by an attacker in the middle, either in the same WiFi network or at some other point [such as] a compromised switch or router in an ISP," Hernandez says.

Of the remaining 19 applications that used a secure HTTPS channel, 13 did not authenticate the remote server with which they communicated. "This is known as SSL pinning, and if not implemented, the chance for a remote attack is higher," Hernandez says. Attackers for instance have an opportunity to trick users into installing a false SSL certificate on their device in order to carry out Man-In-The-Middle attacks, he notes. Ten of the applications that IOActive tested were configured to execute JavaScript code, giving attackers a way to trigger Cross-Site Scripting attacks.

More than 60% of the apps had sensitive data like cryptographic keys and third-party service partner passwords hardcoded in the apps, while 10 had data, such as internal hostnames and IP addresses of the internal environments where the apps were developed or tested.

"This would give attackers [a way] to understand some of the internal network configurations of those brokerage firms or [the] companies that developed the apps," Hernandez said.

IOActive has sent a report detailing its research findings to 13 brokerage firms whose trading apps had some of the more high-risk vulnerabilities. So far, only two have responded, the company said.

Related content:

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity 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
97% of Americans Can't Ace a Basic Security Test
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  5/20/2019
How Security Vendors Can Address the Cybersecurity Talent Shortage
Rob Rashotte, VP of Global Training and Technical Field Enablement at Fortinet,  5/24/2019
TeamViewer Admits Breach from 2016
Dark Reading Staff 5/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
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
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-7068
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7069
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have a type confusion vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7070
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7071
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure.
CVE-2019-7072
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .