GitLab XSS Via Autocomplete Results

Overview

The SonicWall Capture Labs threat research team became aware of a cross-site scripting vulnerability in GitLab, assessed its impact and developed mitigation measures. GitLab, an open-source code-sharing platform, published an advisory on this vulnerability affecting GitLab CE/EE in all versions starting from 16.7 to 16.8.6, 16.9 before 16.9.4 and 16.10 before 16.10.2. Identified as CVE-2024-2279, it allows remote threat actors to perform arbitrary actions on behalf of victims, earning a high CVSS score of 8.7. To mitigate this threat, GitLab users are strongly encouraged to upgrade their instances to the latest versions, as mentioned in the vendor advisory.

Technical Overview

This vulnerability arises due to a flaw in the input validation mechanism while displaying suggestions to the user using the feature called ‘autocomplete for issues reference’ in the rich text editor. Autocomplete characters are a handy way for users to enter field values into markdown fields swiftly. While creating and displaying an issue enforces the escape of the special characters, the same is missing when the user types the character “#” and the backend engine tries to autocomplete from the list of issues.

This enables an attacker with access to ‘issues’ in the project to create an ‘issue’ using a crafted payload in the title field, leading to stored cross-site scripting. The exploit payload triggers when a victim is trying to mention any issue in the textbox using the autocomplete character #, which leads to an automatic execution of arbitrary action specified in the payload. This could include actions such as requesting a resource from the attacker-controlled server.

An escape method from the Lodash library is used to address this vulnerability, as seen in the related diff between version 16.10.1 and 16.10.2 in Figure 1. This method replaces special characters like &, <, >, “, and ‘ with their corresponding HTML entities before adding them to the Document Object Model (DOM).

Figure 1: Utilization of the escape method to resolve the issue

Triggering the Vulnerability

Leveraging this XSS vulnerability requires the attacker to meet the prerequisites below.

  • The attacker must have network access to the target vulnerable system along with the rights to create the ‘issue’.
  • The attacker must create an issue with a malformed payload. For instance, Malicious issue <img src=”http[:]//<attacker_controlled_server>/x.svg”>. This payload will load images from the server if the vulnerability is present.
  • The victim must try to mention any issue using the autocomplete character #.

Exploitation

While the steps to trigger the vulnerability are straightforward, it can test the attacker’s patience since the exploitation requires the victim to try to mention any issue using the rich text editor, to be specific.

To begin with, the issue needs to be created with the crafted payload as seen in Figure 2. The attacker needs to host the x.svg image file at the server specified in the payload.

Figure 2: Malicious issue creation

The created issue will be listed as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Issues list

When a user tries to refer to any issue by typing # in the rich text box, for instance, in the comment box of any other issue, the payload will be triggered. The exploitation can be verified by checking the access logs of the web server, where the access request on behalf of the victim can be seen, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Triggering XSS

SonicWall Protections

To ensure SonicWall customers are prepared for any exploitation that may occur due to this vulnerability, the following signatures have been released:

  • IPS: 4383 GitLab Autocomplete Results XSS
  • IPS: 4385 GitLab Autocomplete Results XSS 2

Remediation Recommendations

GitLab users are strongly encouraged to upgrade their instances to the latest versions as mentioned in the vendor advisory.

Relevant Links

SonicWall at RSAC 2024: The Art of the Platform

The RSA Conference is the epicenter where the industry’s brightest minds gather, foster enlightening discussions, and unveil groundbreaking solutions to elevate your organization.

During this year’s conference, which runs from May 6-9, we’ll be at Booth 5353 in the Moscone Center North Hall — where we’ll unveil our latest developments that showcase our commitment to serving our partner community through greater integration and interoperability.

RSAC’s Theme Meets SonicWall’s Strategy

This year’s theme, “The Art of Possible,” is about going beyond ones and zeros. More than ever, it’s about harnessing the power of collective strength, embracing the power of community, and driving towards making “the impossible seem more possible.” SonicWall also understands that to remain resilient and anticipate future challenges requires combining the wisdom of our instincts with the power of collaborative expertise and shared experiences. That’s why we recently enhanced our portfolio with the acquisition of managed services and secure service edge offerings.

These offerings are pivotal in SonicWall’s cybersecurity platform approach, which will integrate our suite of solutions — including network, endpoint, wireless, cloud email and threat intelligence — under a single, multi-tenant portal. These advancements offer our partners and our customers the latest technology in a hybrid, remote world.

Greater Simplicity. Enhanced Flexibility. A Wave of Momentum.

Platformization in cybersecurity refers to the shift towards integrating various cybersecurity tools and technologies into a unified platform, rather than relying on a disjointed collection of individual solutions.

SonicPlatform is an innovative cybersecurity platform designed specifically for our Managed Service Providers (MSPs) and Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs). It unifies all SonicWall products under a singular, integrated interface, and represents a significant stride toward a more integrated, efficient, and secure management ecosystem for SonicWall’s diverse product suite. It not only streamlines management tasks; it also fosters deep integration, enabling the sharing of contextual information across all enforcement points within the product family and with third-party vendors.

SonicPlatform incorporates several key features, including:

  • Unified Console: A single, intuitive interface for managing all clients and their resources.
  • Unified System Health Visibility: Comprehensive insights into the health and performance of clients’ products – including maintenance needs.
  • Enhanced Security Management: Advanced capabilities for detecting and mitigating threats.
  • Expanded Inventory Management: Efficient management of clients’ resources, including appliances, subscriptions, and licenses, across on-premises and cloud environments.

MSPs (Managed Service Providers) and MSSPs (Managed Security Service Providers) in particular will benefit from the advancements built into SonicPlatform: This comprehensive approach allows organizations to develop a more robust and effective cybersecurity posture in the face of evolving cyber threats by addressing several critical challenges in cybersecurity management. It’s designed to streamline processes, enhance visibility and control, improve threat detection and response, reduce costs, ensure compliance, facilitate integration and scalability, and mitigate the impact of skill gaps.

Underpinning its business momentum is the momentum SonicWall is seeing across its valued partner community. SonicWall’s ongoing commitment to provide meaningful initiatives to its partners is paying dividends in the form of key wins for our partners.

Visit with SonicWall’s Executive team and Product Experts

At the conference, we’ll demonstrate the latest SonicWall technology and answer questions about recent acquisitions, SonicPlatform and more:

SonicWall | Booth 5353, North Hall | Moscone Center

  • Tues., May 7: 10 a.m. – 6 p.m. PT
  • Wed., May 8: 10 a.m. – 6 p.m. PT
  • Thurs., May 9: 10 a.m. – 2 p.m. PT

We also encourage you to join us for three special sessions.

  • “SonicWall: Listening and Taking Action – Empowering MSPs”
    Wednesday, May 8 at 4 PM
    Businesses now require the flexibility of internal IT teams and the expertise of managed services. The answer lies in co-managed IT, which brings both worlds together in a unified platform. SonicWall’s Chandro Prasad, Michael Crean and Tarun Desikan will tackle trends in SMBs, including adoption of hybrid/cloud strategy via service providers and acquisitions that bring Managed Detection and Response and Security Service Edge to MSPs.
  • What Hacking the Planet Taught Us About Defending Against Supply-Chain Attacks
    Monday, May 6 at 1:10 PM
    SonicWall Executive Director of Threat Research and SANS Instructor Douglas McKee will be joining SANS Senior Instructor Ismael Valenzuela to discuss how “hacking the planet” has provided key insight into how to defend against supply chain attacks. They will present a repeatable methodology and process to help protect your organization from this rapidly growing threat.

Douglas will also be on hand in the SonicWall Booth—stop by to catch “Prioritizing Protection: Navigating Cyber Risks with Data” and get the answers to all your questions about cyberthreat trends and the latest SonicWall technology.

As always, RSA 2024 will offer countless opportunities for learning, reconnecting, and reenergizing, and we’d love to see you there! For more information, or to request a one-on-one meeting with a SonicWall cybersecurity expert, visit SonicWall.com/RSA.

Analysis of Native Process CLR Hosting Used by AgentTesla

Overview

SonicWall Capture Labs threat research team has observed fileless .Net managed code injection in a native 64-bit process.  Native code or unmanaged code refers to low-level compiled code such as C/C++.  Managed code refers to code that is written to target .NET and will not work without the CLR (Microsoft .NET engine) runtime libraries. The injected code belongs to AgentTesla malware.

Technical Analysis

The initial infection vector is a Word document that the client received as an email attachment. Upon opening this document, it will ask the user to enable a VBA macro. If enabled, this VBA macro downloads a 64-bit executable from the internet and executes it.

The downloaded binary is a 64-bit, Rust-compiled binary. We are focusing on the techniques used by this binary to inject the malicious AgentTesla payload into its own process memory using CLR Hosting.

The following are details of the 64-bit downloaded executable file.

MD5 : 4521162D45EFC83FA76C4B5C0D405265

SHA256 :  F00ED06A1D402ECF760EC92F3280EF6C09E76036854ABACADCAC9311706ED97D

URL from which 64-bit executable downloaded:

https[:]//New-Coder[.]cc/Users/signed_20240329011751156[.]exe

Disabling Event Tracing for Windows (ETW)

On execution of the Rust binary, it patches the “EtwEventWrite” API from NTDLL using the NtProtectVirtualMemory, WriteProcessMemory and FlushInstructionCache APIs.

Figure 1:  After the malware patches the “EtwEventWrite” API

This 64-bit malware process downloads an encoded shellcode from the following URL which contains the AgenetTesla payload.

URL of the shellcode:

https[:]//New-Coder[.]cc/Users/shellcodeAny_20240329011339585[.]bin

Next, the malware starts the execution of the downloaded shellcode using the “EnumSystemLocalesA” API by passing the address of the shellcode to the API as the callback function argument.

Figure 2: Moved shellcode from read-write memory to executable memory and starts its execution

The shellcode parses PEB and PEB_LDR_DATA to resolve the API dynamically. It will resolve the VirtualAlloc, VirtualFree, and RtlExitUserProcess APIs using an API hashing technique.

Next, the shellcode allocates read-write memory using the “VirtualAlloc” API and moves 0x3E3C0 bytes from the shellcode to the allocated memory.  These bytes are the encoded AgentTesla payload.

Figure 3: Moved shellcode data in read-write memory and starts decryption routine

As shown in Figure 3 above, the first 4bytes (DWORD) are the size of encoded data followed by encoded data.

Next, it proceeds to decrypt the payload. The shellcode uses a customized decryption routine where it performs single-byte XOR decryption in a loop, and for every iteration, it decrypts 0x10 bytes in the payload with a 0x10-byte encryption key. In a decryption loop, every time the malware uses a different encryption key derived from a combination of XOR and arithmetic operations. It decrypts the 0x3E184 bytes of the memory buffer to get the final payload.

Figure 4: Single-byte XOR decryption

Next, the shellcode reads the DLL name array, which contains the names of DLLs that are required for the malware to perform its operation. This array is “ole32;oleaut32;wininet;mscoree;shell32”.

The shellcode parses the PEB structure to check for the presence of the above-mentioned DLLs in the loaded modules list and loads the DLL using the “LoadLibraryA” API if they are not present.

Once the required DLLs are loaded into memory, it resolves a few more APIs such as “VirtualProtect”, “SafeArrayCreate”, “CLRCreateInstance” etc., using the API Hashing technique.

AMSI Bypass Using Memory Patching

Next, the shellcode patches the “AmsiScanBuffer” and “AmsiScanString” API, as shown below.

Figure 5: “AmsiScanBuffer” API after patching

Figure 6: “AmsiScanString” API after patching

Disabling Event Tracing (2nd time)

We have observed the second time patching in shellcode to disable Event Tracing, this might be to confirm the patching continues. It patches “EtwEventWrite” API with a single byte “0xCC” (return instruction).

Next, the shellcode starts CLR hosting.

These are the steps required to perform CLR Hosting, in order:

  • Create a CLR MetaHost instance:

ICLRMetaHost* pMetaHost = NULL;

CLRCreateInstance(CLSID_CLRMetaHost, IID_ICLRMetaHost, (LPVOID*)&pMetaHost);

  • Enumerate the installed runtimes:

pMetaHost->EnumerateInstalledRuntimes(&installedRuntimes);

Enumerate through runtimes and try to locate a specific dotnet version installed on the system.

One has to use “GetVersionString” method from the ICLRRuntimeInfo interface to find the supported .NET Framework version.  This .NET Framework version string will be passed to the GetRuntime API.

  • Get RuntimeInfo using “GetRuntime”:

ICLRRuntimeInfo* runtimeInfo = NULL;

pMetaHost->GetRuntime(sz_runtimeVersion, IID_ICLRRuntimeInfo, (LPVOID*)&runtimeInfo);

  • Get ICorRuntimeHost interface:

ICorRuntimeHost Interface allows more control over the managed runtime from the native code, It can be retrieved using ICLRRuntimeInfo::GetInterface

ICorRuntimeHost* pCorRuntimeHost =NULL;

runtimeInfo->GetInterface(CLSID_CorRuntimeHost,IID_ICorRuntimeHost,(LPVOID*)& pCorRuntimeHost);

  • Retrieve the default AppDomain for the current process:

ICorRuntimeHost interface allows retrieval of the default AppDomain for the current process.

IUnknown* appDomainThunk;

pCorRuntimeHost->GetDefaultDomain(&appDomainThunk);

_AppDomain* defaultAppDomain = NULL;

appDomainThunk->QueryInterface(IID_AppDomain, &defaultAppDomain);

  • Create SafeArray:

we must create SafeArray and copy the MSIL payload to this SafeArray since we can’t provide an unmanaged byte array to the “Load_3” method which loads the assembly into the app domain.

SAFEARRAYBOUND bounds[1];

bounds[0].cElements = sizeof (rawAssemblyByteArray);

bounds[0].lLbound = 0;

SAFEARRAY* safeArray = SafeArrayCreate(VT_UI1, 1, bounds);

SafeArrayLock(safeArray);

memcpy(safeArray->pvData, rawAssemblyByteArray, sizeof (rawAssemblyByteArray));

SafeArrayUnlock(safeArray);

  • Load the assembly to the AppDomain:

_AssemblyPtr  managedAssembly = NULL;

defaultAppDomain->Load_3(safeArray, &managedAssembly)

  • Find an entry point to the loaded assembly:

_MethodInfoPtr  pMethodInfo = NULL;

managedAssembly->get_EntryPoint(&pMethodInfo)

  • Call the entry point:

pMethodInfo->Invoke_3(VARIANT(), SafeArray_Pointer_To_Arguement , &VARIANT())

The second parameter for the “Invoke_3” function is the SafeArray pointer to the arguments that will be passed to the MSIL payload.

ShellCode Executing Managed Code from a Native Code Using CLR hosting

Next, the shellcode calls the “CLRCreateInstance” API from mscoree.dll. The CLRCreateInstance API returns the new CLR MetaHost instance which will be used by malware to prepare a runtime so it can execute the MSIL AgentTesla payload in memory.

We can see in the below figure that multiple GUIDs have been used while retrieving CLR Hosting Interfaces, for e.g., to retrieve “ICorRuntimeHost” interface, it passed “CLSID_CorRuntimeHost” ,  “IID_ICorRuntimeHost” as an argument to the “GetInterface” API.

Figure 7: GUID used while CLR hosting

Next, the shellcode retrieves the ICorRuntimeHost interface and starts the CLR.

Figure 8: Call to GetInterface API to retrieve the ICorRuntimeHost interface

Figure 9: Call start method from ICorRuntimeHost interface to start CLR

Next, the shellcode retrieves the default app domain for the current process, as shown below.

Figure 10: Retrieve the default AppDomain for the current process.

Next, the shellcode creates SafeArray using the “SafeArrayCreate“ API by passing an argument as the size of managed code which is 0x3CC00. This SafeArray does have a pointer to the buffer where malware copies the MSIL payload.

Figure 11: Create a SafeArray and copy AgentTesla payload to it

Once a SafeArray was created, it could be loaded into an AppDomain with the “Load_3” method, this “Load_3” method gives a pointer to an Assembly object.

Figure 12:  Calls “Load_3” method to load the SafeArray into AppDomain

Next, the shellcode zeros out the MSIL payload from the region where it got decrypted then it destroys the SafeArray using the “SafeArrayDestroy” API.

Finally, the shellcode retrieves the entry point for the assembly and calls the “Invoke_3” method to start the 32-bit MSIL AgentTesla process within the context of the 64-bit native process.

Figure 13: Starts the MSIL AgentTesla process

Figure 14: Browser folder enumerated by 64-bit process once the fileless managed code injection has been done

In Figure 14 above, it looks like the 64-bit process is enumerating the browser folder, but its AgentTesla malware started its execution within the .NET engine.

SonicWall Protections

SonicWall Capture Labs provides protection against analyzed 64-bit executable (4521162d45efc83fa76c4b5c0d405265) as GAV: MalAgent.QZ (Trojan).

This threat was also detected by SonicWall Capture ATP w/RTDMI.

The initial infection vector which is a Word document file has been detected by SonicWall Capture ATP w/RTDMI.

IOCs

Document file:

MD5 : D99020C900069E737B3F4AB8C6947375

SHA256 : A6562D8F34D4C25A94313EBBED1137514EED90B233A94A9125E087781C733B37

64-bit downloaded executable:

MD5 : 4521162D45EFC83FA76C4B5C0D405265

SHA256 : F00ED06A1D402ECF760EC92F3280EF6C09E76036854ABACADCAC9311706ED97D

Shellcode blob:

MD5 : CD485BF146E942EC6BB51351FA42B1FF

SHA256 : 02C03E2E8CA28849969AE9A8AAA7FDE8A8B918B5A29548840367F3ECAC543E2D

Injected AgentTesla Payload:

MD5 : 6999D02AA08B56EFE8B2DBBD6FDC9A78

SHA256 : 7B6867606027BFCA492F95E2197A3571D3332D59B65E1850CB20AA6854486B41

URLs used by malware:

https[:]//New-Coder[.]cc/Users/signed_20240329011751156[.]exe  (64-bit exe downloaded)

https[:]//New-Coder[.]cc/Users/shellcodeAny_20240329011339585[.]bin (shellcode downloaded)

HydraCrypt Ransomware Targets Brazil and Charges $5,000 for Decryption

Overview

The SonicWall Capture Labs threat research team has recently been tracking ransomware known as HydraCrypt. HydraCrypt originates from the CryptBoss ransomware family and was first seen in early 2016.  The sample that we analyzed demands $5,000 in Bitcoin for file retrieval, but no contact information is given to ensure this or to negotiate a price.  This variant of HydraCrypt is aimed at Brazil and claims to have successfully attacked many Brazilian firms.

The malware is written in .NET.  We can see the inner workings of the malware after decompilation. It first checks if an instance of itself is already running by looking for a mutex matching a specific pattern:

After passing the above check, the malware injects itself into svchost.exe and then proceeds to encrypt files:

Files on the system are encrypted.  Each encrypted file is given a random four-alphanumeric-character file extension.  After file encryption, a file called “read_it.txt” is dropped into directories containing encrypted files.  It contains the following message in Portuguese and is displayed on the desktop using Notepad:

The message roughly translates to:

” … :::: Legal warning :::: …

Due to numerous flaws in the company Infomach, you have suffered this ransomware attack.

We were indignantly indignant to all the customers of this company. For, as a company that supposedly sells security, has no security?

They live deceiving their customers, offering Pentest and delivering vulnerabilities scanner that solves nothing.

And another, besides selling cat by hare, like to entice the guys of IT. Giving goodies, taking to trips, paying dinners lunch anyway. If you are receiving this message, we suggest you look for a new Cyber security company most responsible.

This time our attack was very simple. Next time will lose everything: data, backup, and all your files will be leaked on the internet for everyone to download.

Infomach you are an amateur company that deceives your customers. Her owners is worth nothing. It is very rich selling dreams.

We did our homework, we studied all your steps to many, many years.

The price of the software is $ 5,000. Payment can be made only in bitcoin

 

Payment Information Amount: 0.08 BTC

Bitcoin Address: BC1QH2K3S6Z32V6787XN2QX4V655ZK5ZADP9ES4DTZ

Other customers who are exposed due to the incompetence of Infomach.

…. ”

A list of targeted directories can be seen in the code:

A list of targeted file extensions is also visible:

The malware takes several measures to disable system recovery:

An jpeg image is embedded in the malware file and is base64 encoded:

After being decoded and written to disk, it is set as the desktop wallpaper:

SonicWall Capture Labs provides protection against this threat via the following signature:

  • GAV: HydraCrypt.RSM_1(Trojan)

 

This threat is also detected by SonicWall Capture ATP w/RTDMI and the Capture Client endpoint solutions.

Atlassian’s Confluence Server Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution

Overview

The SonicWall Capture Labs threat research team became aware of a noteworthy vulnerability—an Unauthenticated Template Injection —in Atlassian Confluence platforms, assessed its impact and developed mitigation measures for it. Atlassian’s Confluence Server and Data Center published an advisory on this vulnerability affecting multiple Confluence releases. Confluence is a web-based corporate wiki software. Atlassian wrote Confluence in the Java programming language and it is utilized for collaboration, project management, process and quality management, and knowledge management.

This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2023-22527 and was assigned a critical CVSS score of 10.0.  Considering the sizeable user base, low attack complexity and publicly available exploit code(s) including a Metasploit module, Confluence users are strongly encouraged to upgrade their instances to the latest versions with utmost priority. According to ShadowServer, around 11,000 Atlassian Confluence instances are publicly exposed, and adversaries are scanning for vulnerable instances.

As per the advisory, the affected Confluence Data Center and Server versions are 8.0.x, 8.1.x, 8.2.x, 8.3.x, 8.4.x, and 8.5.0-8.5.3.

Technical Overview

This vulnerability allows threat actors to circumvent the authentication mechanism by sending a crafted request to the web server.

The primary condition that led to exploiting the vulnerability in Atlassian’s Confluence Server and Data Center is improper user input handling. As a result, attackers can leverage the injection of malicious templates without any authentication, leading to remote code execution. As Confluence is written in Java, OGNL expressions are associated with code. A specially crafted exploit that can inject an arbitrary OGNL object can execute Java code. When the application fails to validate and sanitize user input before using it in OGNL expressions, it may lead to an OGNL injection vulnerability. In OGNL injection attacks, nefarious actors input specially crafted strings containing OGNL expressions into user interfaces or input fields. When the application processes this input without proper validation, the injected OGNL expressions get executed within the application’s context. This can lead to various security issues, including authentication bypass, unauthorized access to sensitive data and remote code execution.

Triggering the Vulnerability

Within the Confluence server, it was observed that actual “views” are rendered using Velocity template files. To trigger the vulnerability, an attacker sends a POST request to “/template/aui/text-inline.vm”, demonstrating that including a .vm file helps get a hands-on unauthenticated attack surface to the Confluence instance. In this scenario, findValue is an OGNL expression that accepts a crafted string in $parameters that are not sanitized properly. As seen in Figure 2, using the OGNL expression #request[‘.KEY_velocity.struts2.context’].internalGet(‘ognl’) will grant access to the class  org.apache.struts2.views.jsp.ui.OgnlTool and calls the method Ognl.findValue(String, Object) method. Furthermore, in a comparison between the unpatched Confluence instance and the patched one, there is a .vm file named text-inline.vm. Figure 1 shows the text-inline.vm file code – the one that is deprecated in patched versions of Confluence.

Figure 1: text-inline.vm

Attackers can leverage this vm file to create a payload utilizing #parameters which pass arguments to the exec method, bypassing authentication and executing system commands.

Figure 2: CVE-2023-22527 OGNL payload

A crafted POST request sent to unpatched Confluence servers leads to OGNL template injection, which results in arbitrary command execution. By changing the payload parameter value, one can execute different commands remotely.

The attack request has the command id injected in the exec() function, as shown in Figure 3. Once this crafted request is sent, the response from the server includes the user id(uid), group id (gid), and groups from the Confluence server.

Figure 3: CVE-2023-22527 attack request

Exploiting the Vulnerability

The working PoC is an exploit tool for Confluence servers vulnerable to CVE-2023-22527. It leads to RCE in vulnerable instances of Confluence data centers and servers. Using this, an attacker can execute arbitrary code on a vulnerable instance.

Figure 4: CVE-2023-22527 PoC

SonicWall Protections

To ensure SonicWall customers are prepared for any exploitation that may occur due to this vulnerability, the following signatures have been released:

  • IPS: 2366 – Atlassian Confluence Data Center and Server SSTI
  • IPS: 4249 – Atlassian Confluence Data Center and Server SSTI 2

Remediation Recommendations

Considering the severe consequences of this vulnerability and the trending of unauthenticated nefarious activists trying to get Confluence Data Center & Confluence Server access using the exploit in the wild, users are strongly encouraged to upgrade their instances as published in the vendor advisory.

Relevant Links

SonicWall DPI-SSL: Encryption Has Met Its Match

Encryption is a fundamental building block in the secure operation of the internet. It protects the confidentiality and integrity of information transmitted over the network, preventing unauthorized third parties from accessing sensitive data.

The need for data encryption on the internet became apparent in the early stages of the World Wide Web. In its early days, information was transmitted in clear text, which meant that anyone intercepting the communication could read it. This lack of security led to the development of SSL in 1994 by Netscape Communications.

From SSL to TLS 1.3

SSL was the first protocol designed to provide a secure encryption layer over internet communications. Its purpose was to protect data transmitted between a client and a server. With SSL, data was encrypted before being sent over the Internet and decrypted at the destination, preventing attackers from intercepting the information. It enabled the secure transmission of sensitive data and helped fuel the growth of e-commerce.

While SSL laid the foundation for internet encryption, weaknesses in the protocol were discovered over time, leading to its successor, TLS, in 1999. TLS boasts significant improvements in terms of encryption algorithms and authentication protocols. It’s become the de facto standard for Internet security, and today it’s used in applications ranging from secure web browsing to email transmission and messaging services.

Today, the most commonly used versions of TLS are TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3.

  1. TLS 1.2: As of this writing, TLS 1.2 is still widely used. It offers a robust level of security and supports a wide range of systems and applications. Many websites and online services still use TLS 1.2 to ensure secure communications. But efforts are being made to encourage the adoption of TLS 1.3 due to its security and performance improvements.
  2. TLS 1.3: TLS 1.3 is the latest and most advanced version of TLS, and was designed to minimize the complexity and vulnerabilities that existed in previous versions. TLS 1.3 is rapidly gaining ground, and its use is essential to ensure fast and secure connections in a constantly evolving environment.

Why should we inspect encrypted traffic?

To ensure secure and efficient online communications in today’s internet environment, the adoption of TLS 1.3 is highly recommended. But while TLS 1.3 addresses many concerns by ensuring that connections are more resistant to attacks and more efficient in terms of performance, online security threats remain prevalent. With more than 90% of internet traffic currently encrypted, this danger will only continue to grow.

The 2024 SonicWall Cyber Threat Report found that encrypted threats rose 117% in 2023, making it the highest year-to-date volume of any year since SonicWall began tracking this threat type.

Defeat Encrypted Threats with SonicWall DPI-SSL

SonicWall’s Gen 7 firewall appliances feature TLS 1.3 support, which allows inspection and securing of encrypted traffic. The ability to inspect this traffic with a firewall is important for a number of reasons:

  1. Detection of hidden threats: DPI-SSL decrypts incoming encrypted data so it can be analyzed and security policies can be applied. This allows the firewall to examine the actual content of encrypted communications, which may include threats such as malware, exploits and zero-day attacks hiding behind encryption to evade being detected. DPI-SSL enables SonicWall to identify and block these threats, providing an additional layer of security.
  1. Data leakage protection: Encryption can be used to bypass security policies and leak sensitive data without being detected. DPI-SSL also helps prevent confidential data leakage by inspecting and controlling encrypted traffic. It can enforce policies to ensure that sensitive data is not transferred in an unauthorized manner over secure connections, which is critical for regulatory compliance and intellectual property protection.
  2. Application control and security policies: Firewalls that inspect encrypted traffic allow organizations to enforce application usage policies more effectively. SonicWall DPI-SSL enables security policy enforcement, content filtering and application control even over encrypted connections. This is essential to ensure proper use of the network.
  3. Regulatory compliance: Some industries and jurisdictions require the inspection of encrypted traffic. In sectors that handle sensitive data, such as healthcare or finance, DPI-SSL can help organizations meet the encrypted traffic inspection requirements needed to ensure data security and meet regulatory compliance.
  4. Advanced threat analysis: By inspecting encrypted traffic, SonicWall firewalls can use advanced threat analysis techniques, such as deep packet inspection, to identify suspicious patterns or malicious behavior. This is crucial to defend against sophisticated threats.
  5. Visibility and control: Encrypted traffic inspection provides greater visibility into what’s happening on the network, allowing admins to take proactive measures to ensure network security and performance.
1. Client initiates TLS/SSL handshake with server4. Server completes handshake and builds a secure tunnel between itself and NGFW
2. NGFW intercepts request and establishes session using its own certificates in place of server5. NGFW re-encrypts traffic and sends along to client
3. NGFW initiates TLS/SSL handshake with server on behalf of client using admin defined TLS/SSL certificate6. NGFW decrypts and inspects all traffic coming from or going to client for threats and policy violations

SonicWall DPI-SSL plays a critical role in enabling secure inspection of encrypted traffic. By efficiently decrypting and analyzing SSL/TLS traffic, SonicWall DPI-SSL helps protect networks and systems from cyberthreats hiding via encryption. This is essential in an ever-evolving cybersecurity environment, where the security of encrypted communications is critical to maintaining data integrity and privacy.

Microsoft Security Bulletin Coverage for April 2024

Overview
Microsoft’s April 2024 Patch Tuesday has 147 vulnerabilities, 68 of which are Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerabilities. The SonicWall Capture Labs threat research team has analyzed and addressed Microsoft’s security advisories for April 2024 and has produced coverage for 8 of the reported vulnerabilities.

Vulnerabilities with Detections

CVECVE TitleSignature
CVE-2024-26158Microsoft Install Service Elevation of Privilege VulnerabilityASPY 558 Exploit-exe exe.MP_378
CVE-2024-26209Microsoft Local Security Authority Subsystem Service Information Disclosure VulnerabilityASPY 557 Exploit-exe exe.MP_377
CVE-2024-26211Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Elevation of Privilege VulnerabilityASPY 560 Exploit-exe exe.MP_380
CVE-2024-26212DHCP Server Service Denial of Service VulnerabilityASPY 559 Exploit-exe exe.MP_379
CVE-2024-26218Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege VulnerabilityASPY 561 Exploit-exe exe.MP_381
CVE-2024-26230Windows Telephony Server Elevation of Privilege VulnerabilityASPY 555 Exploit-exe exe.MP_376
CVE-2024-26234Proxy Driver Spoofing VulnerabilityASPY 554 Exploit-exe exe.MP_375
CVE-2024-26256Windows Compressed Folders (zip) Remote Code Execution VulnerabilityASPY 556 Malformed-File zip.MP.2

Release Breakdown

The vulnerabilities can be classified into the following categories:

For April there are 142 critical, 3 Important and 2 moderate vulnerabilities.

2024 Patch Tuesday Monthly Comparison

Microsoft tracks vulnerabilities that are being actively exploited at the time of discovery and those that have been disclosed publicly before the Patch Tuesday release for each month. The above chart displays these metrics as seen each month.

Denial of Service Vulnerabilities 

CVE-2024-20685Azure Private 5G Core Denial of Service Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26183Windows Kerberos Denial of Service Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26212DHCP Server Service Denial of Service Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26215DHCP Server Service Denial of Service Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26219HTTP.sys Denial of Service Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26254Microsoft Virtual Machine Bus (VMBus) Denial of Service Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29064Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability

Elevation of Privilege Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-20693Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-21324Microsoft Defender for IoT Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-21424Azure Compute Gallery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-21447Windows Authentication Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26158Microsoft Install Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26211Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26213Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26216Windows File Server Resource Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26218Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26229Windows CSC Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26230Windows Telephony Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26235Windows Update Stack Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26236Windows Update Stack Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26237Windows Defender Credential Guard Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26239Windows Telephony Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26241Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26242Windows Telephony Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26243Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26245Windows SMB Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26248Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28904Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28905Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28907Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28917Azure Arc-enabled Kubernetes Extension Cluster-Scope Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29052Windows Storage Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29054Microsoft Defender for IoT Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29055Microsoft Defender for IoT Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29056Windows Authentication Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29989Azure Monitor Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29990Microsoft Azure Kubernetes Service Confidential Container Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29993Azure CycleCloud Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Information Disclosure Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-26172Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure  Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26207Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26209Microsoft Local Security Authority Subsystem Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26217Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26220Windows Mobile Hotspot Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26226Windows Distributed File System (DFS) Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26255Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28900Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28901Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28902Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29063Azure AI Search Information Disclosure Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29992Azure Identity Library for .NET Information Disclosure Vulnerability

 Remote Code Execution Vulnerabilities 

CVE-2024-20678Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-21322Microsoft Defender for IoT Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-21323Microsoft Defender for IoT Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-21409.NET, .NET Framework, and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26179Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26193Azure Migrate Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26195DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26200Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26202DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26205Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26208Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26210Microsoft WDAC OLE DB Provider for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26214Microsoft WDAC SQL Server ODBC Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26221Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26222Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26223Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26224Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26227Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26231Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26232Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26233Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26244Microsoft WDAC OLE DB Provider for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26252Windows rndismp6.sys Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26253Windows rndismp6.sys Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26256libarchive Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26257Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28906Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28908Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28909Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28910Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28911Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28912Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28913Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28914Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28915Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28926Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28927Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28929Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28930Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28931Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28932Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28933Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28934Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28935Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28936Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28937Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28938Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28939Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28940Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28941Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28942Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28943Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28944Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28945Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29043Microsoft ODBC Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29044Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29045Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29046Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29047Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29048Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29050Windows Cryptographic Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29053Microsoft Defender for IoT Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29066Windows Distributed File System (DFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29982Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29983Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29984Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29985Microsoft OLE DB Driver for SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29988SmartScreen Prompt Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability

 Security Feature Bypass Vulnerabilities 

CVE-2024-20665BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-20669Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-20688Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-20689Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26168Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26171Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26175Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26180Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26189Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26194Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26228Windows Cryptographic Services Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26240Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26250Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28896Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28897Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28898Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28903Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28919Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28920Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28921Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28922Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28923Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28924Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-28925Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29061Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2024-29062Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability

 Spoofing Vulnerabilities 

CVE-2024-20670Outlook for Windows Spoofing Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26234Proxy Driver Spoofing Vulnerability
CVE-2024-26251Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability

Patch Tuesday: Which Vulnerabilities Really Need Prioritizing?

By the end of 2023, Microsoft’s cybersecurity team had addressed a formidable 911 vulnerabilities, including 21 zero days. Propelled by sheer will and endless coffee, the team resolved 131 vulnerabilities in July alone—an average of more than four per day. Amid this frenetic pace, questions arise: Did every one of these issues demand an urgent fix? Does the sheer number suggest Microsoft’s products carry too much risk for organizational use? And how can we sift through the details to identify the truly critical vulnerabilities?

To demystify these concerns, SonicWall Capture Labs has meticulously analyzed each ‘Patch Tuesday’ release throughout the year. This research doesn’t just recount vulnerabilities; it delves into their practical impact, offering insights beyond traditional categories and CVSS scores. By examining how attackers exploit these weaknesses, the work of our Capture Labs threat research team provides invaluable guidance, helping partners and customers prioritize their cybersecurity strategies effectively.

One Company, Millions of Attacks

In 2023, SonicWall firewalls prevented over 3.28 million attacks related to Microsoft vulnerabilities, emphasizing the importance of taking Patch Tuesday seriously. The insights from analyzing Patch Tuesday releases underscore the necessity of an informed approach to vulnerability management — and illuminates the need for organizations to ensure that decisions are strategically aligned with realistic cyber threats.

To begin our analysis of the data, we started by looking at the number of vulnerabilities released each month, as shown in Figure 1.  July emerged as the standout month with 131 vulnerabilities, closely trailed by October, which recorded a substantial 104 CVEs. In contrast, December marked the lowest count at 33, accompanied by May and November with 38 and 57, respectively.

Figure 1

Microsoft also tracks vulnerabilities that are being actively exploited at the time of discovery, as well as those that have been disclosed publicly before the Patch Tuesday release for each month. Figure 2 displays these monthly metrics.

July and November emerge as key months, with five exploits and one disclosure in July and three of each in November.

In 2023, Microsoft addressed 21 zero-day exploits, alongside 11 vulnerabilities that were publicly disclosed before their scheduled patch updates. This evolving threat landscape accentuates the crucial role of MSPs in offering continuous monitoring and proactive defense strategies against emerging vulnerabilities far beyond the capabilities of occasional oversight by SOC analysts. MSPs are indispensable in navigating this dynamic environment to safeguard against potential cybersecurity breaches.

Figure 2

Throughout the entirety of 2023, the predominant focus in patching vulnerabilities for an organization each month often revolved around addressing issues related to Remote Code Execution and Elevation of Privilege. These two categories consistently emerge as the primary areas of concern. Figure 3 demonstrates that these categories account for on average more than half of the released patched vulnerabilities.

Figure 3

Does Most Common Mean Most Exploited?

Figure 4
Figure 5

But are remote code execution and elevation of privilege the right areas for a business to focus on when it comes to Microsoft vulnerabilities? It’s noteworthy that, among the 21 exploited vulnerabilities, over half are attributed to Elevation of Privilege and nearly one-fourth are related to Security Feature Bypass, as seen in Figure 5.

In contrast, when considering the 911 total vulnerabilities that Microsoft patched in 2023, Remote Code Execution accounts for 36%, as seen in Figure 4. This is intriguing because, despite Remote Code Execution vulnerabilities constituting a significant portion of the overall vulnerabilities, attackers appear to exploit Elevation of Privilege vulnerabilities more frequently.

This underscores the importance of focusing on addressing and mitigating Elevation of Privilege vulnerabilities in cybersecurity strategies, even though Remote Code Execution vulnerabilities are numerically more prevalent and often considered a higher criticallity.

The underuse of Microsoft remote code execution vulnerabilities points to a broader trend in cyberattack strategies. SonicWall’s 2023 Cyber Threat Report highlights an expected persistently high level of phishing attacks, particularly through deceptive emails invoking urgency and pointing to legitimate-looking login pages. These phishing efforts and Microsoft privilege escalations address two key stages in the MITRE ATT&CK Matrix: gaining initial access and escalating privileges. We’re seeing that attackers favor phishing over Microsoft-specific exploits for initial entry, and subsequently favoring exploiting Microsoft’s privilege vulnerabilities to enhance their access.

Figure 6

Figure 6 showcases the monthly distribution of critical and important issues. These peaked in July, with 10 critical and 121 important vulnerabilities, and dipped in September, with just 2 critical and 55 important issues. By the end of 2023, a total of 84 critical and 821 important vulnerabilities had been patched.

Figure 7

Figure 7 provides a snapshot of Microsoft vulnerabilities in 2023 based on the Microsoft Exploitability Index at the time of Patch Tuesday each month. July is notable in both “Exploitation Detected” and “Exploitation Less Likely” categories. Overall, the year sees 20 vulnerabilities with detected exploitation, 778 with a lesser likelihood, 107 more likely to be exploited, and 5 deemed unlikely to be exploited.

These 107 “Exploitation More Likely” vulnerabilities are particularly noteworthy.  On Patch Tuesday, these vulnerabilities are not currently being exploited, but Microsoft indicates they “would make it an attractive target for attackers, and therefore more likely that exploits could be created.” It recommends that organizations ”should treat this with a higher priority.”

But does this hold true? After Patch Tuesday, CISA only added four more vulnerabilities to the known exploited category.  Two out of the four added were previously labeled “Exploitation Less Likely.” The category of these vulnerabilities is also intriguing, as three are Elevation of Privilege and one is Security Feature Bypass. This again underscores the prevalence of attackers targeting Elevation of Privilege vulnerabilities. Weak authentication, misconfigured access controls and social engineering are common initial access methods that allow these Elevation of Privilege attacks to be successful.

When considering these two data points, it’s reasonable to conclude that, for organizations looking at a large list of Microsoft vulnerabilities, the category of elevation of privileges should carry more weight in prioritization than the exploitable index or other types of vulnerabilities.

Throughout 2023 and into 2024, Microsoft’s operating system remains the leader, commanding a robust 72% share of the desktop market. This dominance attracts cyber attackers, targeting the broadest array of organizations. SonicWall’s findings, revealing over 3.28 million thwarted Microsoft-targeted attacks in 2023, underscore the high stakes.

Microsoft tirelessly works to secure its extensive product range, as demonstrated by the 911 vulnerabilities addressed in 2023’s Patch Tuesdays — yet only about 3% were exploited. This low exploitation rate affirms Microsoft’s dedication to enhancing security and the increasing challenge of exploiting vulnerabilities in their environment.

The prevalence of vulnerabilities, contrasted with their selective exploitation, underscores the critical need for businesses to prioritize and monitor threats efficiently. While elevation of privilege vulnerabilities can receive a lower CVSS and exploitability probability score, they are often the most attractive to threat actors because they fill a critical gap in their playbook.

Cryptominer Poses as Fake Java Utility

Overview

The SonicWall Capture Labs threat research team analyzed a malware purporting to be a Java utility. It arrives as an installer for Java Access Bridge, but ultimately installs the popular open-source cryptominer, XMRig.

Infection Cycle

The sample arrives as a Windows installer package (msi) file using the following file name:

  • JavaAccessBridge-64.msi

Figure 1: Malware installer’s file properties showing Java Access Bridge

Upon execution, a typical installation window pops up.

Figure 2: Fake Java Access Bridge installation window

Meanwhile, the following files are created in these directories:

  • /User/Public/Music/ContentStore.bat
  • /User/Public/Music/DMIDD11.tmp (certificate file)
  • /User/Public/Music/DMIDD12.tmp (certificate file)
  • /User/Public/Music/DMIDD13.tmp (certificate file)
  • /User/Public/Music/DMIDD14.tmp (certificate file)
  • /User/Public/Videos/JavaAccessBridge-64.exe (main XMRig executable)
  • /User/Public/Videos/config.json (miner config file)
  • /User/Public/Videos/WinRing0x64.sys (WinRing0 driver file used by XMRig)

The Windows command prompt utility is then spawned to execute the batch file name ContentStore.bat which runs the commands seen on the screenshot below.

Figure 3: Contents of the batch file ContentStore.bat

The .tmp files created are all certificate files as shown in the screenshot below.

Figure 4: DMIDD14.tmp contains a certificate

The main cryptominer file is then executed via the command line.

Figure 5: Initial execution of JavaAccessBridge-64.exe via the command line.

XMRig is ran using the configuration in the config.json file.

Figure 6: Configuration in the config.json file

Figure 7: XMRig window running in the background

We urge our users to only use official and reputable websites as their source for software downloads. Always be vigilant and cautious when installing software programs – particularly if you are not certain of the source.

SonicWall Protections

SonicWall Capture Labs provides protection against this threat via the following signatures:

  • GAV: Malagent.JAV (Trojan)
  • GAV: XMRig.XMR_4 (Trojan)

This threat is also detected by SonicWall Capture ATP w/RTDMI and Capture Client endpoint solutions.

Multiple Remote Code Execution Vulnerabilities in JumpServer

Overview

The SonicWall Capture Labs threat research team became aware of a couple of remote code execution vulnerabilities in JumpServer, assessed their impact and developed mitigation measures. JumpServer is an open-source bastion host and a professional operation and maintenance security audit system with a substantial presence in the China region. A bastion host is a specialized computer, intentionally exposed on a public network, designed to withstand attacks on a network named after a military fortification.

Identified as CVE-2024-29201 and CVE-2024-29202, JumpServer before version 3.10.7 allows low-privileged threat actors to execute arbitrary code within the Celery container with root privileges, earning a critical CVSS score of 9.9.

Technical Overview

CVE-2024-29201

This vulnerability arises due to a flaw in the input validation mechanism in JumpServer’s Ansible (An IT automation engine), which allows a threat actor with a low-privileged user account to execute arbitrary code in the context of a root user within one of its containers named ‘jms_celery’.

JumpServer enforces a mechanism to disallow the usage of a set of unsafe keywords to prevent users from running local injection commands while running a playbook job, as seen in Figure 1 (left). However, it can be circumvented using the Unicode representation of the character in place of the actual character, for instance, ‘\u0064’ instead of the character ‘d’. Figure 1 (right) illustrates an example of a malicious template that could exploit this vulnerability by running the command specified in the ‘shell’ field. It can be used to create a playbook job and then run a job to execute a specified command.

Figure 1: The set of defined unsafe keywords (left) and the playbook template to bypass validation (right).

CVE-2024-29202

This vulnerability allows the threat actor with a low-privileged user account to inject a malicious Jinja2 template in JumpServer’s Ansible that leads to the execution of arbitrary code within the ‘jms_celery’ container with root privileges. The malicious template, as seen in Figure 2 can be used to create a playbook job and then run the same to execute the desired command.

Figure 2: Malicious jinja2 template

Triggering the Vulnerability

Leveraging the vulnerabilities mentioned above requires the attacker to meet the following prerequisites:

  • The attacker must have network access to the target vulnerable system along with the low-privileged user account.
  • The attacker must have permission to access at least a single valid asset.
  • A playbook needs to be fabricated using any of the above templates from the ‘Job > Template > Playbook manage’ section.
  • A playbook job needs to be created from the ‘Job > Job list’ section, leveraging the playbook created in the previous step.
  • The created job needs to be run.

Exploitation

While steps to trigger the vulnerability look tricky, the exploitation is straightforward. Since the Celery container runs with the root privileges, it yields the threat actor database access and access to the sensitive information across all the managed assets, such as hosts, devices, database, cloud service, web and GPT. Additionally, considering the crucial functionality of the jump host, it can lead to the exposure and compromise of the private network. Achieving remote code execution by leveraging the discussed vulnerabilities is demonstrated in the video below.

SonicWall Protections

To ensure SonicWall customers are prepared for any exploitation that may occur due to this vulnerability, the following signatures have been released:

  • IPS: 19849 JumpServer Ansible Playbook Input Validation Bypass
  • IPS: 19850 JumpServer Ansible Playbook Jinja2 Template Injection

Remediation Recommendations

Considering the pivotal position of a bastion host on a network, JumpServer users are strongly encouraged to upgrade their instances to the latest version (v3.10.7). If one cannot upgrade immediately, then the feature ‘Operation Center’ can be disabled temporarily by visiting System Settings > Features > Task Center.

Relevant Links