The U.S. government today announced a coordinated crackdown against QakBot, a complex malware family used by multiple cybercrime groups to lay the groundwork for ransomware infections. The international law enforcement operation involved seizing control over the botnet's online infrastructure, and quietly removing the Qakbot malware from tens of thousands of infected Microsoft Windows computer systems.

The U.S. government today announced a coordinated crackdown against **QakBot**, a complex malware family used by multiple cybercrime groups to lay the groundwork for ransomware infections. The international law enforcement operation involved seizing control over the botnet’s online infrastructure, and quietly removing the Qakbot malware from tens of thousands of infected Microsoft Windows computers.

Dutch authorities inside a data center with servers tied to the botnet. Image: Dutch National Police.

In an international operation announced today dubbed “**Duck Hunt**,” the **U.S. Department of Justice** (DOJ) and **Federal Bureau of Investigation** (FBI) said they obtained court orders to remove Qakbot from infected devices, and to seize servers used to control the botnet.

“This is the most significant technological and financial operation ever led by the Department of Justice against a botnet,” said **Martin Estrada**, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, at a press conference this morning in Los Angeles.

Estrada said Qakbot has been implicated in 40 different ransomware attacks over the past 18 months, intrusions that collectively cost victims more than $58 million in losses.

Emerging in 2007 as a banking trojan, QakBot (a.k.a. **Qbot** and **Pinkslipbot**) has morphed into an advanced malware strain now used by multiple cybercriminal groups to prepare newly compromised networks for ransomware infestations. QakBot is most commonly delivered via email phishing lures disguised as something legitimate and time-sensitive, such as invoices or work orders.

**Don Alway**, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office, said federal investigators gained access to an online panel that allowed cybercrooks to monitor and control the actions of the botnet. From there, investigators obtained court-ordered approval to instruct all infected systems to uninstall Qakbot and to disconnect themselves from the botnet, Alway said.

The DOJ says their access to the botnet’s control panel revealed that Qakbot had been used to infect more than 700,000 machines in the past year alone, including 200,000 systems in the United States.

Working with law enforcement partners in France, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania and the United Kingdom, the DOJ said it was able to seize more than 50 Internet servers tied to the malware network, and nearly $9 million in ill-gotten cryptocurrency from QakBot’s cybercriminal overlords. The DOJ declined to say whether any suspects were questioned or arrested in connection with Qakbot, citing an ongoing investigation.

According to recent figures from the managed security firm **Reliaquest**, QakBot is by far the most prevalent malware “loader” — malicious software used to secure access to a hacked network and help drop additional malware payloads. Reliaquest says QakBot infections accounted for nearly one-third of all loaders observed in the wild during the first six months of this year.

Qakbot/Qbot was once again the top malware loader observed in the wild in the first six months of 2023. Source: Reliaquest.com.

Researchers at **AT&T Alien Labs** say the crooks responsible for maintaining the QakBot botnet have rented their creation to various cybercrime groups over the years. More recently, however, QakBot has been closely associated with ransomware attacks from **Black Basta**, a prolific Russian-language criminal group that was thought to have spun off from the Conti ransomware gang in early 2022.

Today’s operation is not the first time the U.S. government has used court orders to remotely disinfect systems compromised with malware. In April 2022, the DOJ quietly removed malware from computers around the world infected by the “Snake” malware, an even older malware family that has been tied to the GRU, an intelligence arm of the Russian military.

Documents published by the DOJ in support of today’s takedown state that beginning on Aug. 25, 2023, law enforcement gained access to the Qakbot botnet, redirected botnet traffic to and through servers controlled by law enforcement, and instructed Qakbot-infected computers to download a Qakbot Uninstall file that uninstalled Qakbot malware from the infected computer.

“The Qakbot Uninstall file did not remediate other malware that was already installed on infected computers,” the government explained. “Instead, it was designed to prevent additional Qakbot malware from being installed on the infected computer by untethering the victim computer from the Qakbot botnet.”

The DOJ said it also recovered more than 6.5 million stolen passwords and other credentials, and that it has shared this information with two websites that let users check to see if their credentials were exposed: Have I Been Pwned, and a “Check Your Hack” website erected by the **Dutch National Police**.

Further reading:

–The DOJ’s application for a search warrant application tied to Qakbot uninstall file (PDF)  
–The search warrant application connected to QakBot server infrastructure in the United States (PDF)  
–The government’s application for a warrant to seize virtual currency from the QakBot operators (PDF)

U.S. Hacks QakBot, Quietly Removes Botnet Infections

RISCV ISA Sim commit ac466a21df442c59962589ba296c702631e041b5 implements the incorrect exception priotrity when accessing memory.

Let's take the load instruction as an example:

#define load\_func(type, prefix, xlate\_flags) \\

inline type##\_t prefix##\_##type(reg\_t addr, bool require\_alignment = false) { \\

if (unlikely(addr & (sizeof(type##\_t)-1))) { \\

if (require\_alignment) load\_reserved\_address\_misaligned(addr); \\

else return misaligned\_load(addr, sizeof(type##\_t), xlate\_flags); \\

} \\

reg\_t vpn = addr >> PGSHIFT; \\

size\_t size = sizeof(type##\_t); \\

if ((xlate\_flags) == 0 && likely(tlb\_load\_tag\[vpn % TLB\_ENTRIES\] == vpn)) { \\

if (proc) READ\_MEM(addr, size); \\

return from\_target(\*(target\_endian<type##\_t>\*)(tlb\_data\[vpn % TLB\_ENTRIES\].host\_offset + addr)); \\

} \\

if ((xlate\_flags) == 0 && unlikely(tlb\_load\_tag\[vpn % TLB\_ENTRIES\] == (vpn | TLB\_CHECK\_TRIGGERS))) { \\

type##\_t data = from\_target(\*(target\_endian<type##\_t>\*)(tlb\_data\[vpn % TLB\_ENTRIES\].host\_offset + addr)); \\

if (!matched\_trigger) { \\

matched\_trigger = trigger\_exception(OPERATION\_LOAD, addr, data); \\

if (matched\_trigger) \\

throw \*matched\_trigger; \\

} \\

if (proc) READ\_MEM(addr, size); \\

return data; \\

} \\

target\_endian<type##\_t> res; \\

load\_slow\_path(addr, sizeof(type##\_t), (uint8\_t\*)&res, (xlate\_flags)); \\

if (proc) READ\_MEM(addr, size); \\

return from\_target(res); \\

}

At line 101, load will first check if it is aligned, then at line 122 it will try to access the address in the load\_slow\_path function.

void mmu\_t::load\_slow\_path(reg\_t addr, reg\_t len, uint8\_t\* bytes, uint32\_t xlate\_flags)

{

reg\_t paddr = translate(addr, len, LOAD, xlate\_flags);

if (auto host\_addr = sim->addr\_to\_mem(paddr)) {

memcpy(bytes, host\_addr, len);

if (tracer.interested\_in\_range(paddr, paddr + PGSIZE, LOAD))

tracer.trace(paddr, len, LOAD);

else if (xlate\_flags == 0)

refill\_tlb(addr, paddr, host\_addr, LOAD);

} else if (!mmio\_load(paddr, len, bytes)) {

throw trap\_load\_access\_fault((proc) ? proc->state.v : false, addr, 0, 0);

}

if (!matched\_trigger) {

reg\_t data = reg\_from\_bytes(len, bytes);

matched\_trigger = trigger\_exception(OPERATION\_LOAD, addr, data);

if (matched\_trigger)

throw \*matched\_trigger;

}

}

In load\_slow\_path, it will first check if it is legal address at line 153, and the watch point will be checked at the end of the function.

Briefly, the order of priority is as follows: trap\_load\_address\_misaligned > trap\_load\_access\_fault > trap\_breakpoint

However, in the specification, trap\_breakpoint has a higher priority than the others:  

We also co-simulate with rocket to check this point, rocket threw a breakpoint exception, while spike threw an error misaligned exception.  
The test point is at 0x800001c0 where loading a misaligned illegal address 0x100004001:

    3 0x00800001bc (0x7a261073)
    core   0: 0x00000000800001bc (0x7a261073) csrw    tdata2, a2
    3 0x0080000004 (0x34302f73) x30 0x0000000100004001
    core   0: 0x00000000800001c0 (0x00062603) lw      a2, 0(a2)
    core   0: exception trap_load_address_misaligned, epc 0x00000000800001c0
    core   0:           tval 0x0000000100004001
    core   0: 0x0000000080000004 (0x34302f73) csrr    t5, mtval
    3 0x0080000008 (0x34202f73) x30 0x0000000000000003
    core   0: 0x0000000080000008 (0x34202f73) csrr    t5, mcause
    [error] WDATA SIM 0000000000000004, DUT 0000000000000003
    [error] check board clear 30 error
    [CJ] integer register Judge Failed
    

spike-0.zip

CVE-2022-34643: [Bug Report] Wrong exception priority during access memory · Issue #971 · riscv-software-src/riscv-isa-sim

Iran's steel manufacturing industry is victim to ongoing cyberattacks that previously impacted the country's rail system.

Iran’s steel manufacturing industry is victim to ongoing cyberattacks that previously impacted the country’s rail system.

Malware used in a crippling cyberattacks against an Iranian steel plants last week is connected to an attack that shut down the country’s rail system last year. In both cases, on malware strain was used to impact physical and critical infrastructure, according to a report from Check Point Research.

The overlaps in the code, combined with contextual clues and even recycled jokes, indicate that the same threat actor, dubbed Indra, is behind the attacks impacting Iran’s infrastructure.

**Alleged Motives**

On June 27, a steel billet production line at the Khuzestan Steel Corporation began to malfunction. According to reports, sparks flew sparking a fire in the heart of the plant.

In a statement to the press, Khuzestan Steel’s CEO denied that any damage had been done.

“With timely action and vigilance the attack failed and no damage was done to the production line,” the company said in a statement.

A video posted to Twitter under the username @GonjeshkeDarand claimed responsibility for the both attacks. The video purported to show footage from inside the steel factory. A message was included explaining the attackers’ motives:

“These companies are subject to international sanctions and continue their operations despite the restrictions. These cyber attacks, being carried out carefully so to protect innocent individuals, are in response to the aggression of the Islamic Republic.”

Last year – on the morning of Friday, July 9 – Iran’s national railway system came under attack. On information boards at stations across the country, hackers posted messages about delays and cancellations that didn’t actually exist. (Those messages themselves caused delays, as confusion swept through the commuter crowds.) Check Point attributed that disruption to Indra, a group that’s been active since 2019.

**Connecting This Week to Last Year**

In both the steel and railway attacks, the perpetrators posted a notice instructing victims and passengers to call a certain phone number. That number belongs to the office of the Ayatollah Khamenei, according to Check Point.

Check Point claims it has overlaps between the malware used in both campaigns.

An executable (chaplin.exe) discovered in last week’s attack is a variant of malware identified as meteor, a wiper strain believed used in last year’s attack against Iran’s railway system. “It’s clear that both variants share a codebase,” according to researchers. The malware was dubbed separately as chaplin.

Even without a wiper, the malware is potent. “It begins its execution by disconnecting the network adapters, logging off the user, and executing another binary in a new thread,” the researchers tweeted. The binary “forces the display to be ON and blocks the user from interacting with the computer.” After completely blocking the victim from their own computer’s operation, Chaplin displays the hackers’ message onscreen and “deletes the “Lsa” registry key, preventing the system from booting correctly.”

The investigation into last Monday’s attacks is still ongoing.

Latest Cyberattack Against Iran Part of Ongoing Campaign

Dell PowerScale OneFS, versions 8.2.0.x-9.4.0.x contain allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to denial of service and performance issue on that node.

**Vaikutus**

Critical

**Tiedot**

**Proprietary Code CVE(s)**

**Description**

**CVSS Base Score**

**CVSS Vector String**

CVE-2022-34437

Dell PowerScale OneFS, versions 8.2.2-9.3.0, contain an OS command injection vulnerability. A privileged local malicious user could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to a full system compromise. This impacts compliance mode clusters.

6.7 

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

CVE-2022-34438

Dell PowerScale OneFS, versions 8.2.x-9.4.0.x, contain a privilege context switching error. A local authenticated malicious user with high privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to full system compromise. This impacts compliance mode clusters.

6.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

CVE-2022-34439

Dell PowerScale OneFS, versions 8.2.0.x-9.4.0.x contain allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to denial of service and performance issue on that node.

5.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

 

**Third-Party Component**

**CVE(s)**

**CVSS Vector String**

Intel Platform

CVE-2021-0148

Intel-SA-00535

CVE-2021-0092

Intel-SA-00527

CVE-2021-0093

CVE-2021-0099

CVE-2021-0103

CVE-2021-0107

CVE-2021-0111

CVE-2021-0114

CVE-2021-0115

CVE-2021-0116

CVE-2021-0117

CVE-2021-0118

CVE-2021-0124

CVE-2021-0125 

CVE-2021-0127 

CVE-2021-0060

CVE-2021-00147

CVE-2020-24511

Intel-SA-00463

CVE-2020-24512

CVE-2020-12357

Intel-SA-00464

CVE-2020-12358

CVE-2020-12360

CVE-2020-24486

CVE-2021-0144

Intel-SA-00525

CVE-2020-0591, CVE-2020-0592, CVE-2020-0593

Intel-SA-00358

CVE-2020-0587, CVE-2020-0588, CVE-2020-0590, CVE-2020-8764, CVE-2020-8738, CVE-2020-8739, CVE-2020-8740

Intel-SA-00390

CVE-2020-8705, CVE-2020-8755

Intel-SA-00391

CVE-2020-8696

Intel-SA-00381

Cyrus SASL

CVE-2022-24407

See NVD (http://nvd.nist.gov/) for individual scores for each CVE.  
 

CVE-2019-19906

CVE-2013-4122

**Proprietary Code CVE(s)**

**Description**

**CVSS Base Score**

**CVSS Vector String**

CVE-2022-34437

Dell PowerScale OneFS, versions 8.2.2-9.3.0, contain an OS command injection vulnerability. A privileged local malicious user could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to a full system compromise. This impacts compliance mode clusters.

6.7 

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

CVE-2022-34438

Dell PowerScale OneFS, versions 8.2.x-9.4.0.x, contain a privilege context switching error. A local authenticated malicious user with high privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to full system compromise. This impacts compliance mode clusters.

6.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

CVE-2022-34439

Dell PowerScale OneFS, versions 8.2.0.x-9.4.0.x contain allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to denial of service and performance issue on that node.

5.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

 

**Third-Party Component**

**CVE(s)**

**CVSS Vector String**

Intel Platform

CVE-2021-0148

Intel-SA-00535

CVE-2021-0092

Intel-SA-00527

CVE-2021-0093

CVE-2021-0099

CVE-2021-0103

CVE-2021-0107

CVE-2021-0111

CVE-2021-0114

CVE-2021-0115

CVE-2021-0116

CVE-2021-0117

CVE-2021-0118

CVE-2021-0124

CVE-2021-0125 

CVE-2021-0127 

CVE-2021-0060

CVE-2021-00147

CVE-2020-24511

Intel-SA-00463

CVE-2020-24512

CVE-2020-12357

Intel-SA-00464

CVE-2020-12358

CVE-2020-12360

CVE-2020-24486

CVE-2021-0144

Intel-SA-00525

CVE-2020-0591, CVE-2020-0592, CVE-2020-0593

Intel-SA-00358

CVE-2020-0587, CVE-2020-0588, CVE-2020-0590, CVE-2020-8764, CVE-2020-8738, CVE-2020-8739, CVE-2020-8740

Intel-SA-00390

CVE-2020-8705, CVE-2020-8755

Intel-SA-00391

CVE-2020-8696

Intel-SA-00381

Cyrus SASL

CVE-2022-24407

See NVD (http://nvd.nist.gov/) for individual scores for each CVE.  
 

CVE-2019-19906

CVE-2013-4122

Dell Technologies suosittelee, että kaikki asiakkaat ottavat huomioon sekä CVSS-peruspistemäärän että kaikki asiaankuuluvat väliaikaiset ja ympäristöön liittyvät pisteet, jotka voivat vaikuttaa tietyn tietoturvahaavoittuvuuden mahdolliseen vakavuuteen.

**Tuotteet, joihin asia vaikuttaa ja tilanteen korjaaminen**

CVE(s) Addressed

Product

Affected Version(s)

Updated Version(s)

Link to Update

CVE-2021-0148

F600 with Intel P4510 2TB and 4TB ISE drives

PowerScale OneFS Versions:  
9.4.0.x  
9.3.0.x  
9.2.1.x  
9.2.0.x  
9.1.0.x  
9.0.0.x  
Drive Support Package versions prior to 1.42.3

Download and install >= Drive Support Package 1.42.3.

PowerScale OneFS Downloads Area

CVE-2021-0092

A200, A2000, A300, A3000, F200, F600, F800, F810, F900, H400, H500, H5600, H600, H700, H7000, B100, P100  
 

PowerScale OneFS Versions:  
9.4.0.x  
9.3.0.x  
9.2.1.x  
9.2.0.x  
9.1.0.x  
9.0.0.x  
Node Firmware Package versions prior to 11.5.1  
 

Download and install the latest Node Firmware Package version >= 11.5.1.

CVE-2021-0093

CVE-2021-0099

CVE-2021-0103

CVE-2021-0107

CVE-2021-0111

CVE-2021-0114

CVE-2021-0115

CVE-2021-0116

CVE-2021-0117

CVE-2021-0118

CVE-2021-0124

CVE-2021-0125 

CVE-2021-0127 

CVE-2021-0060

CVE-2021-00147

A200, A2000, A300, A3000, F800, F810, H400, H500, H5600, H600, H700, H7000

CVE-2020-24511

A300, A3000, H700, H7000

CVE-2020-12358

CVE-2020-12360

A200, A2000, A300, A3000, F800, F810, H400, H500, H5600, H600, H700, H7000

CVE-2020-24486

A300, A3000, H700, H7000

CVE-2021-0144  
 

A200, A2000, A300, A3000, F800, F810, H400, H500, H5600, H600, H700, H7000

CVE-2020-0591

A2000, A200, H400, H500, H600, F800, F900, F200, F600, B100, and P100

CVE-2020-0592

CVE-2020-0593

A2000, A200, H400, F900, F200, F600, B100, and P100

CVE-2020-8738

CVE-2020-8739

CVE-2020-8740

CVE-2020-8764

CVE-2020-0587

F900, F200, F600, B100, and P100

CVE-2020-0588

CVE-2020-0590

CVE-2020-8705

CVE-2020-8755

CVE-2020-8696

CVE-2022-24407

PowerScale OneFS

9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.21  
9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.15  
9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.7  
9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.5

Download and install the latest RUP.  
\>= 9.1.0.22  
\>= 9.2.1.16  
\>= 9.3.0.8  
\>= 9.4.0.6

CVE-2019-19906

CVE-2013-4122

Any other version

Upgrade your version of PowerScale OneFS.

CVE-2022-34437

PowerScale OneFS

9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.21  
9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.15  
9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.7

Download and install the latest RUP.  
\>= 9.1.0.22  
\>= 9.2.1.16  
\>= 9.3.0.8

Any other version

Upgrade your version of PowerScale OneFS.

CVE-2022-34438

PowerScale OneFS

9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.22  
9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.15  
9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.7  
9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.5

Download and install the latest RUP.  
\>= 9.1.0.23  
\>= 9.2.1.16  
\>= 9.3.0.8  
\>= 9.4.0.6

Any other version

Upgrade your version of PowerScale OneFS.

CVE-2022-34439

PowerScale OneFS

9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.22  
9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.16  
9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.7  
9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.5

Download and install the latest RUP.  
\>= 9.1.0.23  
\>= 9.2.1.16  
\>= 9.3.0.8  
\>= 9.4.0.6

Any other version

Upgrade your version of PowerScale OneFS or apply the steps listed in the "Workaround and Mitigations" in the next table.

CVE(s) Addressed

Product

Affected Version(s)

Updated Version(s)

Link to Update

CVE-2021-0148

F600 with Intel P4510 2TB and 4TB ISE drives

PowerScale OneFS Versions:  
9.4.0.x  
9.3.0.x  
9.2.1.x  
9.2.0.x  
9.1.0.x  
9.0.0.x  
Drive Support Package versions prior to 1.42.3

Download and install >= Drive Support Package 1.42.3.

PowerScale OneFS Downloads Area

CVE-2021-0092

A200, A2000, A300, A3000, F200, F600, F800, F810, F900, H400, H500, H5600, H600, H700, H7000, B100, P100  
 

PowerScale OneFS Versions:  
9.4.0.x  
9.3.0.x  
9.2.1.x  
9.2.0.x  
9.1.0.x  
9.0.0.x  
Node Firmware Package versions prior to 11.5.1  
 

Download and install the latest Node Firmware Package version >= 11.5.1.

CVE-2021-0093

CVE-2021-0099

CVE-2021-0103

CVE-2021-0107

CVE-2021-0111

CVE-2021-0114

CVE-2021-0115

CVE-2021-0116

CVE-2021-0117

CVE-2021-0118

CVE-2021-0124

CVE-2021-0125 

CVE-2021-0127 

CVE-2021-0060

CVE-2021-00147

A200, A2000, A300, A3000, F800, F810, H400, H500, H5600, H600, H700, H7000

CVE-2020-24511

A300, A3000, H700, H7000

CVE-2020-12358

CVE-2020-12360

A200, A2000, A300, A3000, F800, F810, H400, H500, H5600, H600, H700, H7000

CVE-2020-24486

A300, A3000, H700, H7000

CVE-2021-0144  
 

A200, A2000, A300, A3000, F800, F810, H400, H500, H5600, H600, H700, H7000

CVE-2020-0591

A2000, A200, H400, H500, H600, F800, F900, F200, F600, B100, and P100

CVE-2020-0592

CVE-2020-0593

A2000, A200, H400, F900, F200, F600, B100, and P100

CVE-2020-8738

CVE-2020-8739

CVE-2020-8740

CVE-2020-8764

CVE-2020-0587

F900, F200, F600, B100, and P100

CVE-2020-0588

CVE-2020-0590

CVE-2020-8705

CVE-2020-8755

CVE-2020-8696

CVE-2022-24407

PowerScale OneFS

9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.21  
9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.15  
9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.7  
9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.5

Download and install the latest RUP.  
\>= 9.1.0.22  
\>= 9.2.1.16  
\>= 9.3.0.8  
\>= 9.4.0.6

CVE-2019-19906

CVE-2013-4122

Any other version

Upgrade your version of PowerScale OneFS.

CVE-2022-34437

PowerScale OneFS

9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.21  
9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.15  
9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.7

Download and install the latest RUP.  
\>= 9.1.0.22  
\>= 9.2.1.16  
\>= 9.3.0.8

Any other version

Upgrade your version of PowerScale OneFS.

CVE-2022-34438

PowerScale OneFS

9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.22  
9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.15  
9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.7  
9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.5

Download and install the latest RUP.  
\>= 9.1.0.23  
\>= 9.2.1.16  
\>= 9.3.0.8  
\>= 9.4.0.6

Any other version

Upgrade your version of PowerScale OneFS.

CVE-2022-34439

PowerScale OneFS

9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.22  
9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.16  
9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.7  
9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.5

Download and install the latest RUP.  
\>= 9.1.0.23  
\>= 9.2.1.16  
\>= 9.3.0.8  
\>= 9.4.0.6

Any other version

Upgrade your version of PowerScale OneFS or apply the steps listed in the "Workaround and Mitigations" in the next table.

**Keinoja ongelman kiertämiseen tai lieventämiseen**

CVE 

Workarounds

CVE-2022-34439

This vulnerability only applies to  
1) ethernet backend cluster and  
2) single (non-redundant) backend configuration  
Disable LBFO by issuing this command:

if $(isi cluster internal-networks view | grep -q "Failover Status: disabled" ) && 
 $(isi cluster internal-networks view | grep -q "Fabric: Ethernet"); 
then echo; echo "Disabling service, please re-enable after upgrade to fixed version" ; isi services isi\_lbfo\_d disable ; 
else echo; echo "Not impacted" ; fi 

After patch applied or upgrade to a version with the issue resolved, revert this mitigation with command:

#isi services isi\_lbfo\_d enable

Note: This is required prior to future configurations using redundant backend interfaces

**Versiohistoria**

**Revision**

**Date**

**Description**

1.0

2022-10-13

Initial Release

**Asiaan liittyvät tiedot**

Dell Security Advisories and Notices  
Dell Vulnerability Response Policy  
CVSS Scoring Guide

Isilon A200, Isilon A2000, Isilon F800, Isilon F810, Isilon H400, Isilon H500, Isilon H5600, Isilon H600, PowerScale Archive A300, PowerScale Archive A3000, PowerScale B100, PowerScale F200, PowerScale F600, PowerScale F900, PowerScale Hybrid H700Näytä lisää

14 lokak. 2022

CVE-2022-34439: DSA-2022-245: Dell EMC PowerScale OneFS Security Update for Multiple Security Updates

Nextcloud Server is an open source personal cloud server. Prior to versions 24.0.7 and 25.0.1, disabled download shares still allow download through preview images. Images could be downloaded and previews of documents (first page) can be downloaded without being watermarked. Versions 24.0.7 and 25.0.1 contain a fix for this issue. No known workarounds are available.

    1) Tests\Core\Controller\PreviewControllerTest::testNoPreview
    Error: Call to a member function instanceOfStorage() on null
    
    /drone/src/core/Controller/PreviewController.php:134
    /drone/src/core/Controller/PreviewController.php:84
    /drone/src/tests/Core/Controller/PreviewControllerTest.php:190
    
    2) Tests\Core\Controller\PreviewControllerTest::testValidPreview
    Error: Call to a member function instanceOfStorage() on null
    
    /drone/src/core/Controller/PreviewController.php:134
    /drone/src/core/Controller/PreviewController.php:84
    /drone/src/tests/Core/Controller/PreviewControllerTest.php:223

CVE-2022-41970: Check share attributes on preview endpoints by juliushaertl · Pull Request #34788 · nextcloud/server

CVE-2021-33333

SAP NetWeaver AS ABAP (Banking Services), versions - 710, 711, 740, 750, 751, 752, 75A, 75B, 75C, 75D, 75E, does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user due to Missing Authorization Check, allowing wrong and unexpected change of individual conditions by a malicious user leading to wrong prices.

CVE-2020-6270

Certain HP and Samsung Printer software packages may potentially be vulnerable to elevation of privilege due to Uncontrolled Search Path Element.

CVE-2022-4894: Certain HP and Samsung printer software - Potential elevation of privileges

A cross-site scripting vulnerability exists in Jenkins Config File Provider Plugin 3.1 and earlier in configfiles.jelly, providerlist.jelly that allows users with the ability to configure configuration files to insert arbitrary HTML into some pages in Jenkins.

CVE-2018-1000413: Jenkins Security Advisory 2018-09-25

A crime syndicate based in Russia steals millions of dollars from credit card companies using fake dating and porn sites on hundreds of domains to rack up fraudulent charges.

A subscription service scam has garnered millions of dollars in credit card charges by creating fake dating and porn sites, staffing them with live customer support, and using stolen credit card accounts to pay for "services." 

Endpoint security firm ReasonLabs stated in a Sept. 23 advisory that a Russian-speaking cybercrime group has created hundreds of fraudulent websites since 2019, likely using third-party proxies, as well as dozens of business sites that act as both a generic name for credit card charges and as a hub for customer support calls. By using recurring charges that are small enough to escape many customers' notice, the fraudsters were able to keep chargeback requests low enough to avoid being shut down and continue profiting from the scam.

While the different components of the scheme are not original, the sum total managed to bypass credit card companies' fraud detection and garner millions of dollars in revenue, ReasonLabs' research team said in the advisory.

"Eventually, once — some of — these users find these charges, they will immediately approach the issuer for a dispute and replacement of the card number, which will cause chargebacks."

The three-year scam highlights the resurgence of credit-card fraud, especially for businesses that are dealing with a hybrid workforce. Two-thirds of companies have experienced fraud in the past year, according to a recent study from KPMG. Security experts have meanwhile warned that third-party scripts on websites — part of the software supply chain — could be at risk of being co-opted to steal credentials and credit-card information.

**Designed to Seem Legitimate**

In the latest credit card scam, the cybercriminals created the right mix of components to dodge anti-fraud defenses and to remain unnoticed by consumers who don't always check their credit card bills, researchers said. While unsurprising, the scope of the fraud is quite brazen, Timothy Morris, technology strategist for security management firm Tanium, said in a statement sent to Dark Reading.

"Real companies can run virtually, so it isn’t hard to imagine fake companies running virtually," he said. "Front-end user interfaces, back-end customer support, payment providers, \[and other components\] give this swindle all the ingredients of legitimacy."

The business sites that originated the charges and appeared to be legitimate all have similar structure, with the organization's name, a motto, and information on how to contact support. ReasonLabs found 75 support sites, all with the same HTML code, importing the same JavaScript files, and having identical comments, the company said.

The scheme was also given the veneer of credibility by these 200 fake sites — mainly adult- and dating-themed — that supposedly were the source of the charges. While adult sites are classified as high risk in the financial industry, the combination of live sites and active business hubs helped make the scheme seem legitimate.

The type of fake site that the fraudsters used also likely made the scheme more successful, Matt Mullins, senior security researcher at Cybrary, said in a statement sent to Dark Reading.

"Dating sites, adult sites, and other services have social stigmas associated with them that puts the victim in a questionable light," he said. "This questionable light also makes it more likely that a victim will try to resolve it themselves versus calling up a customer service representative and trying to resolve it."

Finally, the criminal group uses typical credit card spending patterns to make the transaction less suspicious. Rather than use test transactions followed by large transaction, the criminal group uses recurring payments of small dollar amounts to escape notice.  

Because most financial providers have strict agreements with high-risk businesses — such as adult sites — to limit the level of chargebacks, the cybercriminal group takes a variety of actions to avoid chargebacks. The fake businesses' names are fairly generic, they charge small dollar amounts, allow the user to cancel their "subscription," and have live customer support, ReasonLabs said.

"The fraudsters applied each individual customer service website for payment processing in order to distribute the chargebacks between many websites rather than just one," the company stated in its advisory. "This would ensure that their payment processing capabilities will not be revoked once one site reaches the agreed rate of chargebacks, or refunds, which is divided by the number of legit transactions."

The campaign is ongoing, but ReasonLabs has notified the companies affected by the fraud to help shut down the cybercriminal enterprise.

Search

lenovo warranty check/lookup | check warranty status | lenovo support us