Aggregator

As Bryan Adams croons in the background (Everything I do) I do it for you…. and you give the last...

The post Indian Digital Citizens Need to Better Balance Their Device Use and Manage Online Safety appeared first on McAfee Blog.

牛顿法可以求一些非线性方程的近似解. 而对于求平方根,  可以将 $y = \sqrt{x}$ 化成方程 $x^2 - a = 0$ 中求 $x$ 的值, $x$ 即为 $a$ 的开根号, 根据牛顿法定义, 可以写出以下程序

Sandstorm Security Review (English Version)
一次在 Sandstorm 跳脫沙箱的滲透經驗 (中文版本)

In early 2017, we had a pentesting target protected with Sandstorm. Sandstorm is a web-based platform which allows users to install their web apps, such as WordPress, GitLab, etc. The main feature of Sandstorm is that it containerizes every app in its own sandbox. Therefore, even though we had found several vulnerabilities of the apps, we still could not put a threat to the server.

In order to leverage the vulnerabilities, we put part of efforts into review of Sandstorm’s source codes, and tried to escape the sandbox to impact the whole server. Finally, we found a number of uncommon and interesting vulnerabilities, and received CVE IDs as follows:

• CVE-2017-6198 (Denial of Service)
• CVE-2017-6199 (Bypassing Authorization Schema)
• CVE-2017-6200 (Insecure Direct Object References)
• CVE-2017-6201 (Server-Side Request Forgery)

This is a DoS created by system resource exhaustion. The root cause is that Sandstorm does not have a comprehensive policy to limit the amount of resource used by every apps run on it. In src/sandstorm/supervisor.c++ only the maximum number of files opened by each process was limited. See the codes below:

Ref: https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/blob/v0.202/src/sandstorm/supervisor.c++#L824

Since supervisor does not restrict the amount of subprocesses and storage usage, attackers can raise a resource exhaustion attack to crash the server by simply uploading a malicious app which keeps calling fork() (aka the “fork bomb”) or consumes huge storage space.

Usually Sandstorm will designate unique permissions to the specific members of a certain organization, and the default membership validation method is to check user’s email address and see whether the string after @ exists in their white list. See the codes below:

Ref: https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/blob/v0.202/shell/packages/sandstorm-db/db.js#L1112

Therefore, when an attacker fills in an email like [email protected],[email protected] and the system will automatically consider the attacker a member of the aaa.bbb organization.

Another key factor that contributes to the successful attack lies in one of the features when users log on Sandstorm. Users does not need to set up passwords for Sandstorm. Each time when the users need to log onto the service, they only need to fill in their email address, and they’ll receive a set of random unique password for login. The reason why the example above works is because the system treats [email protected],[email protected] as a user from aaa.bbb domain, and the random password will be sent to the two email addresses, [email protected] and [email protected] As long as one can receive the password, they can log in to use the service.

Below is a quick demonstration:

1. On Sandstorm, restrict access to users from domain aaa.bbb only.

2. On login page, fill in [email protected],[email protected] for the email field. (Note: at the front end, the email field is checked with HTML5 validation, but it is not further checked for validity at the back end)

3. Retrieve random password in [email protected] mailbox.

4. Login successful. [email protected],[email protected] is considered as a user and member of aaa.bbb organization!

In our pentesting, the target website allowed users from validated domains to install their own apps. Therefore, through this bypass exploit, further attacks could be accomplished by combining other vulnerabilities described in this blog post (CVE-2017-6198, CVE-2017-6200, CVE-2017-6201).

This is an interesting vulnerability. Totally two little validation flaws were exploited to initiate this attack! On Sandstorm, owners of each Grain (Sandstorm container, in short, an app sandbox) can download their backup data for the app. But because of the two vulnerabilities in the packing process, an attacker can pack the files under the /etc and /run directories located on the server outside the sandbox. The security issues were as follows:

1. The packing process has hid /var, /proc, /etc and other sensitive directories, but did not hide /etc.host and /run.host these two directories. These directories are the aliases for the directories /etc and /run on the server respectively, which are relatively newer features.

2. The system will pack the legitimate files, have them sorted out, and create zip packages through the standard input interface. The separation between files are determined by line-breaks (\n). As a result, when a line-break string appears in the file name, illegal path file names can be injected and packed with zip. Although the app checks whether there is a line-break in the file name, but the directory name was not checked.

Ref: https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/blob/v0.202/src/sandstorm/backup.c%2B%2B#L271

By using these two vulnerabilities together, the attacker simply has to create a directory in the sandbox /var/exp\n/etc.host/passwd\n , then backup files containing /etc/passwd on the server can be retrieved through backup downloading function.

Screenshot of a real-world scenario:

1. First, create a new directory in Grain /var/exp\n/etc.host/passwd\n, and use the Grain Backup function to download the backup file.

2. After unzipping the backup file, from etc.host we’ll see /etc/passwd of the server outside the sandbox.

This is a classic SSRF (Server-Side Request Forgery) issue. Sandstorm allow installation of apps from arbitrary sources, and an attacker can simply let the server access a certain location by providing an installation URL. The problem was identified on https://[target]/install/xxxChangeItEveryTimexxx?url=http://127.0.0.1:22/ This sample link confirms whether the server’s port 22 is open.

After we reported the vulnerabilities, Sandstorm fixed it immediately and then published an article: https://sandstorm.io/news/2017-03-02-security-review

Through this pentesting experience, we consider Sandstorm a safe platform with outstanding security mechanisms. This is mainly attributed to its fundamental design rationale: to assume that every app installed is malicious. With this vigilant assumption, Sandstorm’s defence mechanisms for the core system become comprehensive and watertight. Apart from the server-side protection, some common client-side attacks (such as XSS, CSRF) are handled properly by Sandstorm’s unique countermeasures, such as host name randomization. That is, it is very difficult for attackers to sabotage the server by simply manipulating the apps, and so does privilege escalation through attacking at the client-side.

Nevertheless, such an impressive platform still had some minor mistakes which led to security issues. Most of the vulnerabilities found this time are improper usages of libraries or negligence of existing defence architecture while introducing new features. These types of vulnerability are also common in our other projects. We would like to take the opportunity to remind developers, always present a comprehensive security review especially when developing new features to avoid vulnerabilities caused by the gaps between defence mechanisms.

Sandstorm Security Review (English Version)
一次在 Sandstorm 跳脫沙箱的滲透經驗 (中文版本)

2017 年初，我們有個滲透測試專案，專案的標的架構在 Sandstorm 之上。Sandstorm 是一款 Web 平台，使用者可以輕易的在該平台安裝各種 Web App（如 WordPress、GitLab…），該平台最大的特色在於這些 App 都是在沙箱中執行。因此，即使我們測試中找到多項 App 弱點，也無法對平台本身造成威脅。

為了讓弱點效益最大化，我們將一部分精力轉移到研究 Sandstorm 原始碼，目的是跳脫 App 的沙箱環境看有沒有機會影響整台伺服器。最後，我們找到了幾個少見且有趣的弱點，並申請 CVE 編號如下：

• 阻斷服務攻擊（Denial of Service），CVE-2017-6198
• 繞過授權模式（Bypassing Authorization Schema），CVE-2017-6199
• 不安全的直接存取物件（Insecure Direct Object References），CVE-2017-6200
• 服務端請求偽造（Server-Side Request Forgery），CVE-2017-6201

這是一個消耗系統資源造成的 DoS。起因是 Sandstorm 並未完善限制每個 App 所能使用的資源，在 src/sandstorm/supervisor.c++ 僅限制了每個程序能夠打開的最多檔案數，相關程式碼如下：

Ref: https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/blob/v0.202/src/sandstorm/supervisor.c++#L824

由於 supervisor 未限制子程序數量以及未限制儲存空間用量，因此攻擊者只要讓 App 不斷執行 fork（通常稱為 Fork Bomb）或是大量使用硬碟空間，就會造成伺服器資源不足而中斷服務。

通常 Sandstorm 會設定特定組織成員才能擁有特殊的權限，而系統預設的組織成員判斷方式是檢查使用者 email 中「@」符號最後的字串是否在白名單內，相關程式碼如下：

Ref: https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/blob/v0.202/shell/packages/sandstorm-db/db.js#L1112

因此，當攻擊者填入的 email 為 [email protected],[email protected]，系統便會將攻擊者視為 aaa.bbb 組織的使用者。

這項攻擊得以成功還有另外一個關鍵點，發生在 Sandstorm 登入的一個特色上。使用 Sandstorm 服務不需要設定密碼，使用者每次欲登入時填入 email，系統便會發送一組每次皆不同的隨機密碼作為登入使用。上述的例子之所以能夠成功，就是因為系統將 [email protected],[email protected] 視為一個 aaa.bbb 網域的使用者，而隨機密碼會發送到 [email protected] 以及 [email protected] 兩個不同信箱中，只要可以收到密碼就可以登入使用服務。

直接案例說明：

1. 在 Sandstorm 限定只有用 aaa.bbb 網域才可以登入。

2. 登入處 email 欄位填入 [email protected],[email protected]。（註：email 欄位在前端有用 HTML5 Validation，但後端並無檢查 email 是否合法）

3. 在 [email protected] 信箱收到隨機密碼。

4. 成功登入，[email protected],[email protected] 被視為一個使用者，且為 aaa.bbb 組織成員！

在我們的滲透測試中，標的網站是允許認證的網域使用者自行安裝 App 的。因此透過這項繞過弱點，攻擊者可以再搭配本篇其他漏洞（CVE-2017-6198、CVE-2017-6200、CVE-2017-6201）做更進一步的攻擊。

這是一個有趣的弱點，總共組合了兩個驗證上的小疏忽才能達成攻擊！ 在 Sandstorm 中每個 Grain（Sandstorm container，簡單來說就是一個 App 沙箱）的擁有者都可以下載該 App 的備份資料，但由於打包流程中存在兩個弱點，因此攻擊者可以打包沙箱外伺服器的 /etc 和 /run 下的檔案。發生的問題如下：

1. 打包的流程隱藏了 /var、/proc、/etc 等敏感目錄，卻沒有隱藏 /etc.host 及 /run.host 這兩個目錄。這兩個目錄分別是伺服器下 /etc 和 /run 的別名，是較後期的功能。

2. 系統會將欲打包的合法檔案整理出來透過標準輸入介面傳給 zip 打包，而判斷檔案和檔案間的區隔是靠換行符號(\n)。因此，當檔名中出現換行符號，可以插入非法的路徑檔名藉由 zip 打包。程式雖然有檢查檔名是否存在換行符，卻疏忽了檢查目錄名。

Ref: https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/blob/v0.202/src/sandstorm/backup.c%2B%2B#L271

綜合上述兩個弱點，攻擊者只要在沙箱內建立一個目錄 /var/exp\n/etc.host/passwd\n，就可以透過下載備份的功能取得含有伺服器 /etc/passwd 檔案的備份檔。

實際情境截圖：

1. 先在 Grain 裡新建目錄 /var/exp\n/etc.host/passwd\n，並用 Grain Backup 的功能下載備份檔。

2. 解開備份檔後在 etc.host 目錄下看到沙箱外伺服器的 /etc/passwd

這是經典的 SSRF（Server-Side Request Forgery）問題，在 Sandstorm 安裝 App 流程沒有限制安裝來源，攻擊者提供一個安裝 URL 就能讓伺服器存取該位置。該問題發生在 https://[target]/install/xxxChangeItEveryTimexxx?url=http://127.0.0.1:22/，這個範例連結得以確認伺服器的 22 port 是否開啟。

在提交弱點後，Sandstorm 官方非常迅速修正了弱點，並且發表了一篇文章： https://sandstorm.io/news/2017-03-02-security-review

在這次滲透經驗中，我們認為 Sandstorm 是一款安全、有出色防禦機制的平台。主要原因取決於它的一個核心設計理念：就是假設使用者安裝的 App 都是惡意的。以這樣的前提出發去保護核心系統的安全，建立起來的防禦機制自然是全面且完善的。除了伺服器本身的保護，一些常見的客戶端攻擊（例如：XSS、CSRF）也透過 Sandstorm 特殊的隨機 hostname 等機制保護的很好。因此攻擊者很難從 App 本身去破壞伺服器，也很難透過攻擊客戶端去提升使用者的權限。

儘管是如此優秀的平台，仍舊會因一些小地方疏忽導致攻擊者有機可乘。這次發現弱點的地方多半在於 library 的誤用和新功能的撰寫沒有考慮到舊有防禦架構。這在其他專案也是常見的問題，藉機也提醒開發者在開發新功能時應做全面的安全檢視，以避免防禦落差所導致的弱點。