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

2/5/2015
10:00 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Scan Finds 'Ghost' Haunting Critical Business Applications

Some 41% of enterprise applications using GNU C Library (glibc) employ the Ghost-ridden 'gethostbyname' function, Veracode discovers.

Ghost is alive and well in many critical business applications, suggesting the vulnerability may be more pervasive than originally thought, new data shows.

Application security vendor Veracode found in its cloud-based scanning service that 41% of its customers' enterprise applications that use the GNU C library, aka glibc, call the Ghost-ridden gethostbyname function.

Ghost--CVE-2015-0235--is a serious buffer overflow vulnerability affecting various Linux systems. The flaw in Linux's glibc could allow an attacker to remotely wrest control of a system without authenticating to it to insert malware, or to wage distributed denial-of-service attacks, for instance. It's found in various Linux appliances and affects Debian 7, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and 7, CentOS 6 and 7, and Ubuntu 12.04, as well as other Linux implementations. Glibc versions 2.2 through 2.17 are vulnerable to Ghost. All of the known affected Linux systems now have patches available.

Veracode says some 80% of those applications it analyzed using glibc were rated as highly business-critical by the organizations, which indicates they may be financial transaction applications or others that access sensitive databases.

"The pervasiveness [of Ghost, we found] was kind of surprising," says Chris Wysopal, CTO of Veracode. When the bug was first revealed last month by Qualys, the good news was that it was an "old function," so newer systems were likely safe, he says.

"But there's a lot of old software out there that is running" it, he says.

Ghost may affect more types of systems that originally thought, too:  Veracode also found that while 72% of the potentially Ghost-vulnerable applications were written in C or C++, which has been associated with Ghost, others they saw were written in Java, .NET, and PHP, programming languages.

The good news, still, is that exploiting Ghost isn't simple, as many experts have pointed out, and it's not a one-size-fits-all attack. "If you look at the way Ghost exploitation is presenting itself, it was very different in every application," Wysopal says. "It depends on how the application is using IP addresses and hostname lookups, and the way it's calling gethostbyname."

That means any Ghost attacks would most likely be targeted, and most likely be by sophisticated attackers since the bug is so implementation-dependent. "This [type of attacker] will fingerprint the software you have exposed on a desktop or on the Net, and get that software and check it out and [see] if it's vulnerable," he says.

Wolfgang Kandek, CTO at Qualys, recently told Dark Reading that while exploitable prospects aren't necessarily easy to find, there were indeed likely others out there. "Ghost has multiple remote vectors, [and] we only know of one so far," he says, referring to the Ghost proof-of-concept his team demonstrated exploiting the Exim mail server.

Veracode's advice: keep all Internet-facing systems at the latest patch level. "Don't try to figure out if you're vulnerable or not. Just patch," Wysopal says. As for Linux-based appliances and other embedded devices that may not get patches, or systems behind your firewall, it won't be so simple. "They might not be as easy to patch," he says.

Ghost is the latest in a string of big open-source software bugs that have been disclosed over the past year or so. It won't be the last, either, according to Wysopal, since there are so many open-source components being used today in software.

"We're going to see more of the more critical vulnerabilities. This is definitely not going away," he says. "Know what components you're using in your organization, and applications you're writing or building, and track them so you're ready to respond when a vulnerability becomes public." 

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
2/5/2015 | 12:32:25 PM
Re: Validation Scans
@RyanSepe, that is great advice. Patching isn't just apply-it-and-forget it, especially with tricky bugs like these.
RyanSepe
100%
0%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2015 | 12:02:16 PM
Validation Scans
It is imperative to make sure that after patching is performed for Ghost that validation scans are performed to ensure that the vulnerability no longer exists. I know the patch requires a reboot and there is always the possibility of an issue during patching. Always ensure the patch was applied correctly through validation scans.
97% of Americans Can't Ace a Basic Security Test
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  5/20/2019
TeamViewer Admits Breach from 2016
Dark Reading Staff 5/20/2019
How a Manufacturing Firm Recovered from a Devastating Ransomware Attack
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  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-2019-5798
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Lack of correct bounds checking in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform an out of bounds memory read via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5799
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect inheritance of a new document's policy in Content Security Policy in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5800
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Insufficient policy enforcement in Blink in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5801
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect eliding of URLs in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5802
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect handling of download origins in Navigation in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.