Class: Bypassing Intended Security Controls
CVE: <NA>
Remote: Yes
Local: Yes
Published: August 11, 2010
Timeline: Submission to MITRE: August 11, 2010
Credit: Jeromie Jackson CISSP, CISM
COBIT & ITIL Certified
President- San Diego Open Web Application Security Project
(OWASP)
Vice President- San Diego Information Audit & Control
Association (ISACA)
SANS Mentor
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/securityassessment
Blog: www.JeromieJackson.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/Security_Sifu
Cell: 832-378-RISK (7475)
Validated Vulnerable:
All versions prior to 12/07/2010
Discussion:
Palo Alto Networks firewall claims it can identify and control applications
regardless of port, protocol, encryption, or evasive tactic. Due to the need
for organizations to support protocols and applications not yet categorized by
Palo Alto there is an underlying logic issue. Unless a company is willing to
disable all services except for those well-known by the Palo Alto firewall risk
will be constantly present. I spent a couple hours testing the Palo Alto
Network firewall to see if I could puncture the firewall and achieve remote
command-and-control.
The Palo Alto Networks firewall uses Application Visibility and Application
Control functions in order to identify services and apply controls across the
firewall segments. An attacker can leverage a phishing scam or a vulnerabile
online forum to distribute a remote command-and-control payload to a machine
behind the firewall. The attacked machine will then initiate an outbound
command-and-control connection. Palo Alto Networks Firewall simply identifies
it as Unknown TCP.
Exploit:
First, I thought about using HTTP to traverse the firewall and remotely control
a device behind the firewall. I successfully created a command-and-control
session which the firewall identified as generic HTTP traffic. I leveraged the
following script from The Hacker's Choice (THC):
http://www.packetstormsecurity.org/groups/thc/rwwwshell-1.6.perl
Second, I generated a Metasploit reverse_tcp command-and-control payload. I
uploaded the payload to a website, generated a phishing email, and had the
victim machine go to a malicious URL. Command-and-Control was achieved and the
firewall simply characterized it as Unknown TCP traffic. Metasploit has the
ability to encode the payloads in a plethora of ways- Palo Alto Networks will
need to address all potential encodings in order to mitigate the risk.
I worked with the vendor for several months and they recently came out with a
signature update that will identify Metasploit. Due to evasion techniques such
as encoding, payload packing, and other ways to evade filters I believe the
signatures may not catch all payloads generated by Metasploit. I will be doing
a little more work in the near future to run a small battery of tests to
evaluate the detection rates.
Below are the details pertaining to the update. I find it odd it was marked as
a medium severity. Having these Metasploit remote command-and-control sessions
enabled me to gain access to password hashes, install keyloggers, start remote
desktop VNC sessions, hide my process, and to pivot off the attacked machine to
gain further access into the environment.
Vulnerability Signatures Summary
Severity
ID
Attack Name
CVE ID
Vendor ID
Default Action
medium
33515
Metasploit Meterpreter Connection Attempt
alert
medium
33516
Metasploit Meterpreter Connection Attempt
alert
high
33616
IAX2 Asterisk Remote Denial of Service
CVE-2007-3763
alert
high
33446
Struts2 and XWork remote command execution Vulnerability
CVE-2010-1870
alert
critical
33605
Microsoft Office Memory Corruption Vulnerability
CVE-2008-0118
MS08-016
alert
high
33606
Microsoft Word Crafted SmartTag Record Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2008-2244
MS08-042
alert
critical
33607
Microsoft Excel Record Parsing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2008-3006
MS08-043
alert
critical
33608
Microsoft PowerPoint Picture Index Variant Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2008-0121
MS08-051
alert
critical
33609
Microsoft PowerPoint List Value Parsing Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2008-1455
MS08-051
alert
medium
33621
Oracle Web Cache Admin Module Denial of Service Vulnerability
CVE-2002-0386
alert
high
33627
Adobe Flash Player loadBitmap Memory Corruption Vulnerability
cve-2010-3648
APSB10-26
alert
Solution:
A patch will be required from the vendor. In order for the vendor to meet its
claims of identifying and controlling applications regardless of port,
protocol, encryption, or evasion techniques, it will be required to gather
signatures from at minimum the most prevalent command-and-control tools
available in the wild and create identification techniques to mitigate the
risk. Users could block all non-identified application traffic passing through
the firewall to mitigate the risk, however this is generally not a viable
option. While their technology is proving to be a strong firewall in the
market the marketing statements are a bit lofty.
