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

11/16/2009
04:21 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Most Security Products Fail Initial Certification Tests

A study based on the testing of thousands of security products over 20 years finds that most require several rounds of testing before achieving certification.

Seventy-eight percent of security products do not perform as intended when first tested and typically require at least two rounds of further testing to achieve certification, claims a report released on Monday.

The "ICSA Labs Product Assurance Report" comes from ICSA Labs, a division of Verizon Business. The company offers vendor-neutral certification and testing of security products.

The report was produced in conjunction with the Verizon Business Data Breach Investigations research team and was based on the testing of thousands of security products over the past 20 years.

The report aims to make buyers aware that "all is not as it seems in the world of security products" and to make vendors aware of common pitfalls in the certification process.

George Japak, managing director, ICSA Labs and a co-author of the report, said in a statement that vendors should view certification failures as opportunities to improve their products.

Only 4% of products pass on the first round. Nonetheless, most vendors address shortcomings in their products and resubmit them, which is why 82% of products submitted for certification eventually receive it.

That 82% figure represents an average that includes anti-virus, network firewall, Web app firewall, network IPS, IPSec VPN, SSL VPN, and Custom Testing products. In most of these categories, the percentage of products eventually receiving certification ranged from 80% and 100%. But one category, network IPS, represented an outlier: Only 29% of network IPS products ever attained certification.

The report says the category covers "a complex technology with difficult testing requirements" and notes that many vendors, unable to pass the rigorous tests, dropped out of the certification process.

The primary reason for these certification failures is that the products tested don't do what they're supposed to do.

For an anti-virus product, that means failing to block viruses and for an IPS (intrusion prevention system) that means failing to block malicious network traffic.

Failure to properly log data represented the second most common reason for certification failure.

Security problems represent the third most common reason for certification failure. These are seen in 44% of security products.

"One of the more ironic examples we've ever come across was a Web application firewall that turned up numerous vulnerabilities within its Web administration interface," the report states. "Cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and buffer overflow vulnerabilities and unencrypted admin interfaces are some of the common security issues identified within the Custom Testing engagements, Web Application Firewalls, and Network Firewalls programs."

Register now for Black Hat DC, the largest and the most important security conference series in the world. It happens Jan. 31-Feb. 3, 2010, in Arlington, Va. Find out more and register.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Data Leak Week: Billions of Sensitive Files Exposed Online
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/10/2019
Intel Issues Fix for 'Plundervolt' SGX Flaw
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
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-2019-17123
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
The eGain Web Email API 11+ allows spoofed messages because the fromName and message fields (to /system/ws/v11/ss/email) are mishandled, as demonstrated by fromName header injection with a %0a or %0d character. (Also, the message parameter can have initial HTML comment characters.)
CVE-2019-19774
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
An issue was discovered in Zoho ManageEngine EventLog Analyzer 10.0 SP1 before Build 12110. By running "select hostdetails from hostdetails" at the /event/runquery.do endpoint, it is possible to bypass the security restrictions that prevent even administrative users from viewing credential...
CVE-2019-19790
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Path traversal in RadChart in Telerik UI for ASP.NET AJAX allows a remote attacker to read and delete an image with extension .BMP, .EXIF, .GIF, .ICON, .JPEG, .PNG, .TIFF, or .WMF on the server through a specially crafted request. NOTE: RadChart was discontinued in 2014 in favor of RadHtmlChart. All...
CVE-2019-19793
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
In Cyxtera AppGate SDP Client 4.1.x through 4.3.x before 4.3.2 on Windows, a local or remote user from the same domain can gain privileges.
CVE-2019-19722
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
In Dovecot before 2.3.9.2, an attacker can crash a push-notification driver with a crafted email when push notifications are used, because of a NULL Pointer Dereference. The email must use a group address as either the sender or the recipient.