## Vulnerability type: 
CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
## Vendor: 
Decidim International Community Environment

### Has vendor conﬁrmed: 
Yes

### Attack type:
Remote

### Impact:
Code Execution
Escalation of Privileges
Information Disclosure

### Aﬀected component:
A raw sql-statement that uses an interpolated variable exists in the admin_role_actions method of the
`papertrail/version-model(app/models/decidim/decidim_awesome/paper_trail_version.rb`).

### Attack vector:

An attacker with admin permissions could manipulate database queries in order to read out the database,
read ﬁles from the ﬁlesystem, write ﬁles from the ﬁlesystem. In the worst case, this could lead to remote code
execution on the server.
Description of the vulnerability for use in the CVE [ℹ] (https://cveproject.github.io/docs/content/key-details-
phrasing.pdf) : An improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command in the `papertrail/version-
model` of the decidim_awesome-module <= v0.11.1 (> 0.9.0) allows an authenticated admin user to manipulate sql queries
to disclose information, read and write ﬁles or execute commands.

### Discoverer Credits:
Wolfgang Hotwagner

### References:
https://pentest.ait.ac.at/security-advisory/decidim-awesome-sql-injection-in-adminaccountability/
https://portswigger.net/web-security/sql-injection

**Exploitability Metrics**

Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.

Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.

Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.

User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.

**Vulnerable System Impact Metrics**

Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.

Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).

Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.

**Subsequent System Impact Metrics**

Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.

Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).

Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.

GHSA-cxwf-qc32-375f: Decidim-Awesome has SQL injection in AdminAccountability

Adaptive Shield is the third security posture management provider the company has acquired in the last 14 months as identity-based attacks continue to rise.

Source: Artemis Diana via Alamy Stock Photo

CrowdStrike's spending spree for security posture management capabilities continued with a deal to buy Adaptive Shield, an Israeli startup  that specializes in securing organizations' SaaS ecosystems and protecting against identity-based attacks.

Last week's deal calls for CrowdStrike to pay cash and stock for Adaptive Shield; CrowdStrike expects to complete the transaction by the end of January 2025. Press reports estimate the value of the deal at around $300 million.

Founded in 2019, Adaptive Shield is one of many companies in the SaaS security posture management (SSPM) sector; others include AppOmni, DoControl, Obsidian, and Reco. 

Adaptive Shield's platform supports more than 150 SaaS applications including Adobe, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Salesforce, Slack, and Zoom. It monitors for misconfigurations and identity threats, and offers a no-code tool for custom SaaS applications called Integration Builder.

**Competitive Impact?**

Omdia senior principal analyst Rik Turner wonders whether the deal will prompt CrowdStrike's competitors like Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, and Sentinal One to follow suit with their own deals. Overall, it's been an active time for acquisitions of cloud and data security posture management (DSPM) startups, he noted. 

Adaptive Shield is CrowdStrike's third security posture management provider in the last 18 months. In October 2023, CrowdStrike bought Bionic, an early provider of application security posture management (ASPM), extending security risk visibility from code development to cloud deployment. 

Earlier this year, CrowdStrike bought Flow Security, another DSPM cloud platform that protects data at rest and in motion. "In contrast, there has been no such buying frenzy with SSPMs. CrowdStrike's acquisition of Adaptive Shield is the first deal of this kind, raising the question of whether it might start a trend among the purchaser’s competitors," Turner note in a recent report.

CrowdStrike emphasizes that the addition of Adaptive Shield will boost the capability of its Falcon platform to protect organizations against identity-based attacks by adding SaaS applications to the mix. 

Once integrated into Falcon, Adaptive Shield's SSPM platform will give organizations visibility into misconfigurations, unnecessary or rogue privileges, and activities undertaken among accounts of on-premises and cloud identity providers as well as SaaS security applications. The addition "provides organizations with granular visibility into their growing cloud environments, enables them to manage and secure their SaaS security posture and their human and non-human identities, and helps them detect and prevent identity-centric, cloud-focused cyberattacks," CrowdStrike president Michael Sentonas explained in a blog post.

CrowdStrike senior product manager for identity Ryan Terry buttressed that message at a company meeting last week in Amsterdam. "Our vision is to unify identity protection across the entire Falcon security platform that includes cloud security," he said. "That will bring ISPM, CIEM, and ITDR together in an integrated way, in one single platform to help you address today's modern identity challenges."

**Keying in on Identity**

SaaS connectors will improve visibility into threat activity and precursors to identity-based attacks, says Forrester Research principal analyst Andras Cser. And he believes adding SSPM to CrowdStrike Falcon will fill a gap in the platform's identity protection module.

"Identity-wise, CrowdStrike claims they have ITDR, but in reality, it's mainly cloud infrastructure entitlement management, addressing how admins have access to policies that drive privileges on things like \[AWS\] S3 buckets and Azure Blobs and things like that," Cser says. "It's not true \[identity and access management\] in the sense of user account provisioning-deprovisioning, federation, token service, and all these other types of things."

The Adaptive Shield SSPM and ITDR platform promises to provide a broad range of protection against such attacks by providing unified, hybrid identity management for SaaS-based apps and on-premises authentication, notably Microsoft's Active Directory.

Adaptive Shield's platform also continuously monitors generative AI-based SaaS applications for configuration shifts and enforces security standards and privileges. And it's designed to prevent data exfiltration and discover unauthorized AI applications. "Beyond identities, it also provides visibility into misconfigurations and other risks affecting SaaS applications so organizations can better manage these issues and detect and respond to threats," Sentonas added.

Identity-Based Attacks Continue to Mount

Vendor focus on identity isn't happening in a vacuum. Threat actors such as Scattered Spider and Cozy Bear (also known as APT29 and Midnight Blizzard) have actively exploited identity through various techniques, including password spraying, phishing, stealing legitimate credentials, and exploiting misconfigurations. 

After managing to get global administrator rights to MGM Resorts' Azure instances last year, Scattered Spider was able to exfiltrate data and disrupt its operations. Earlier this year, Microsoft was among the victims of a password spray attack by Russia-based Midnight Blizzard, compromising its corporate email systems. Overall, CrowdStrike has claimed that 80% of breaches now have an identity component.  

At the RSA Conference earlier in the year, Sentonas and CrowdStrike co-founder and CEO George Kurtz demonstrated how hackers exploit identity provider misconfigurations with phish-able authentication factors to gain access to highly privileged accounts. "They move laterally once they're inside an organization to achieve their outcome," Sentonas said.

**More Identity Features in the Wings**

Ross Penny, a principal technical strategist for CrowdStrike, said the company plans to roll out several tools to bolster CrowdStrike Falcon Identity by February 2025. Among recent and current deliverables include integration with AWS Identity Center, which reports on the "full picture" of risks associated with federated AWS accounts. 

"If you're only looking within AWS because it's federated, you lack a lot of information about it," Penny explained. "The fact that we know where that account lives and originates means you have a much wider variety of risk that you're able to use to calculate those access decisions and detections."

Penny said that CrowdStrike is also readying a policy management API that can be integrated into external workflows. CrowdStrike developed this API because many of its customers also use ServiceNow.

Early next year, CrowdStrike will extend integration with other identity providers, including Okta Universal Directory, Google Workspace, and AWS permission usage analysis. CrowdStrike also plans to add attack path detection across those multiple identity providers in 2025.

Don't miss the upcoming free Dark Reading Virtual Event, "Know Your Enemy: Understanding Cybercriminals and Nation-State Threat Actors," Nov. 14 at 11 am ET. Don't miss sessions on understanding MITRE ATT&CK, using proactive security as a weapon, and a masterclass in incident response; and a host of top speakers like Larry Larsen from the Navy Credit Federal Union, former Kaspersky Lab analyst Costin Raiu, Ben Read of Mandiant Intelligence, Rob Lee from SANS, Dr. Max Smeets from ETH Zurich, and Elvia Finalle from Omdia. Register now!

**About the Author**

Jeffrey Schwartz is a journalist who has covered information security and all forms of business and enterprise IT, including client computing, data center and cloud infrastructure, and application development for more than 30 years. Jeff is a regular contributor to Channel Futures. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Redmond magazine and contributed to its sister titles Redmond Channel Partner, Application Development Trends, and Virtualization Review. Earlier, he held editorial roles with CommunicationsWeek, InternetWeek, and VARBusiness. Jeff is based in the New York City suburb of Long Island.

CrowdStrike Spends to Boost Identity Threat Detection

Marketed on a cybercriminal forum, the $700 tool harvests email addresses from public GitHub profiles, priming cyberattackers for further credential theft, malware delivery, OAuth subversion, supply chain attacks, and other corporate breaches.

Source: Piotr Swat via Alamy Stock Photo

Researchers have uncovered a tool aimed at targeting GitHub users, distributed on a cybercrime forum. It offers bulk developer credential theft and the ability to conduct further malicious activities, including supply chain attacks.

The tool — called GoIssue and potentially linked to a previous GitHub repository extortion campaign called Gitloker — allows potential attackers to extract email addresses from GitHub profiles and to send bulk emails directly to user inboxes, researchers from SlashNext discovered.

"At its core, the tool systematically harvests email addresses from public GitHub profiles, using automated processes and GitHub tokens to collect data based on various criteria — from organization memberships to stargazer lists," SlashNext revealed in a blog post on Nov. 12.

GoIssue is marketed to potential attackers at $700 for a custom build or $3,000 for full source code access. The tool combines bulk email capabilities with sophisticated data collection features, and protects the operator's identity through proxy networks, according to SlashNext. 

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Don't miss the upcoming free Dark Reading Virtual Event, "Know Your Enemy: Understanding Cybercriminals and Nation-State Threat Actors," Nov. 14 at 11 a.m. ET. Don't miss sessions on understanding MITRE ATT&CK, using proactive security as a weapon, and a masterclass in incident response; and a host of top speakers like Larry Larsen from the Navy Credit Federal Union, former Kaspersky Lab analyst Costin Raiu, Ben Read of Mandiant Intelligence, Rob Lee from SANS, and Elvia Finalle from Omdia. Register now!

Related:Citrix Issues Patches for Zero-Day Recording Manager Bugs

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Developers Have a Target on Their Backs**

Developers increasingly have become a top target for threat actors because they provide the keys to valuable source code that can be used to launch supply chain attacks, reaching numerous victims by merely altering or abusing lines of code. As the leading online repository for source code, GitHub already has been in the crosshairs of numerous malicious campaigns targeting its users.

"The emergence of GoIssue signals a new era where developer platforms become high-stakes battlegrounds," with attackers aiming to "exploit trusted developer environments," observes Jason Soroko, senior fellow at Sectigo, an automated certificate life-cycle management firm.

GoIssue represents an evolution in GitHub-focused attack tools, giving attackers a way to orchestrate large-scale, customized phishing campaigns that can bypass spam filters and target specific developer communities, while attackers maintain the cover of anonymity.

Related:Citrix 'Recording Manager' Zero-Day Bug Allows Unauthenticated RCE

Through these campaigns, attackers can steal developer credentials and use that stolen information in phishing attacks that can steal login credentials, spread malicious payloads to compromise a user's device, or distribute prompts for OAuth app authorization that give attackers access to private repositories and data.

In this way, threat actors can steal and/or poison source code from GitHub projects to launch supply chain and other attacks that can breach corporate networks, the researchers said. "This is a high-impact attack mechanism that specifically preys on the trust and openness of the developer community," Soroko observes.

**Cybercrime Link to Gitloker Extortion Campaign?**

When investigating GoIssue, the contact info provided to potential buyers of the tool led SlashNext researchers to a Telegram profile for "cyberluffy," which states that someone called "Cyber D' Luffy" is a member of the Gitloker team. Gitloker is an ongoing campaign uncovered in June that uses GitHub notifications to push malicious OAuth apps aimed at wiping developer repositories for extortion purposes.

Moreover, in a thread advertising GoIssue, the seller even links to high-profile security blogs that detail and validate Gitloker attack efficacy. This seems to suggest that the same attackers selling GoIssue are behind Gitloker, and the tool "could be an extension of the Gitloker campaign or an evolved version of the same tool," according to SlashNext.

Related:'SteelFox' Malware Blitz Infects 11K Victims With Bundle of Pain

"Both tools share a similar target audience (GitHub users) and leverage email communication to initiate attacks," according to the post. "This overlap in purpose and personnel strongly supports the theory that they are either linked or variations of one another."

No matter who is distributing the tool, it represents a dire warning to developers using GitHub that they need to remain vigilant and not engage with any anomalous email correspondence or messages that seem suspicious, the researchers noted. "This isn’t just spam; it’s a potential entry point to taking over your account or projects," according to SlashNext.

Enterprises with developers in the organization that use GitHub in particular should be especially proactive and adaptive at securing their people, notes Mika Aalto, co-founder and CEO at human risk-management firm Hoxhunt.

"As attackers leverage automation and advanced tools with increasing sophistication, we must give people the instincts to recognize a suspicious email and the skills to report threats that bypass filters," he says.

Enterprises also should integrate human threat intelligence into the security stack to facilitate accelerated detection and response to suspicious activity, Aalto adds.

**About the Author**

Elizabeth Montalbano is a freelance writer, journalist, and therapeutic writing mentor with more than 25 years of professional experience. Her areas of expertise include technology, business, and culture. Elizabeth previously lived and worked as a full-time journalist in Phoenix, San Francisco, and New York City; she currently resides in a village on the southwest coast of Portugal. In her free time, she enjoys surfing, hiking with her dogs, traveling, playing music, yoga, and cooking.

'GoIssue' Cybercrime Tool Targets GitHub Developers En Masse

There is some disagreement over whether the remote code execution (RCE) security flaws allow for unauthenticated exploitation or not. Citrix says no, but researchers say the company is downplaying a "good old unauthenticated RCE."

Source: JHVEPhoto via Shutterstock

Very swiftly after their disclosure, Citrix has issued patches for two vulnerabilities in its Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktop technology that allow a remote attacker escalate privileges or execute code of their choice on vulnerable systems.

Citrix has described the remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities as something that only a previously authenticated attacker could abuse. However, researchers at watchTowr who discovered the flaws and developed a proof-of-concept exploit (PoC) say it's a point-and-click vulnerability that an unauthenticated attacker can exploit with relative ease.

Citrix is tracking one of the flaws as CVE-2024-8068 and the other as CVE-2024-8069.  

**Citrix Downplaying Threat Severity?**

The flaws affect the thin-client technology's Session Recording Manager component that allows admins to capture, store, and manage recordings of user sessions. They stem from a weakness in how Session Recording Manager deserializes or unpacks data that has been converted into a format that makes it easy to store and transmit, according to the researchers at watchTowr who discovered and reported the issues to Citrix in July.

Citrix initially said it was unable to reproduce the issue but later acknowledged the problem after the security vendor gave them a PoC exploit for the vulnerability.

Related:'GoIssue' Cybercrime Tool Targets GitHub Developers En Masse

In an advisory on Nov. 12, the company described CVE-2024-8068 as a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows an authenticated user in the same Windows Active Directory domain as the session recording server to gain NetworkService Account access. CVE-2024-8069, according to Citrix, is a "limited" RCE for attackers with admin level account access on vulnerable systems. "Cloud Software Group strongly urges affected customers of Citrix Session Recording to install the relevant updated versions of Citrix Session Recording as soon their upgrade schedule permits," the company cautioned.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Don't miss the upcoming free Dark Reading Virtual Event, "Know Your Enemy: Understanding Cybercriminals and Nation-State Threat Actors," Nov. 14 at 11 a.m. ET. Don't miss sessions on understanding MITRE ATT&CK, using proactive security as a weapon, and a masterclass in incident response; and a host of top speakers like Larry Larsen from the Navy Credit Federal Union, former Kaspersky Lab analyst Costin Raiu, Ben Read of Mandiant Intelligence, Rob Lee from SANS, and Elvia Finalle from Omdia. Register now!

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Even so, Citrix has assigned both vulnerabilities only medium severity scores of 5.1 of 10 on the CVSS vulnerability rating scale. It's an assignment that watchTowr has disputed.

Related:Citrix 'Recording Manager' Zero-Day Bug Allows Unauthenticated RCE

"Citrix is downplaying the severity of this vulnerability as a medium priority when it’s really point-click-full-takeover," says Benjamin Harris, CEO of watchTowr, pointing to the company's exploit code. The combination of the two vulnerabilities allows for a "good old unauthenticated RCE," Harris tells Dark Reading.

"Citrix's Virtual Apps and Desktop offering is a flagship Citrix solution, targeted at \[Fortune 500\] organizations," he notes. "Since we're dealing with a deserialization issue, a bug class that is known for being relatively stable, we \[have\] a high degree of confidence that our exploit will work reliably. There's no tricky heap manipulation or other entropy creeping in."

Many organizations use Citrix’s Virtual Apps and Desktop technology to enable users to access their applications and desktop environments from anywhere and using any device. It gives organizations a way to centrally deploy, update and secure all user apps from a single location making maintenance more efficient, consistent and cost effective. Another benefit that Citrix advertises is increased security from having applications and data on centralized servers rather than on individual endpoint devices. The technology's Session Recording feature — where watchTowr discovered the flaws — enables admins to monitor for anomalous behavior and to maintain a detailed record of user activity for future audit and troubleshooting purposes.

Related:'SteelFox' Malware Blitz Infects 11K Victims With Bundle of Pain

Demand for such technologies has increased in recent years as more companies have embraced remote and hybrid work models. Research firm MarketsandMarkets estimates the market will reach $1.7 billion in 2028 from around $1.5 billion last year. The broader desktop as a service (DaaS) market itself is expected to hit nearly $19 billion by 2030 from just over $4 billion in 2021.

**Dependence on Known Insecure Technology**

watchTowr discovered the vulnerabilities while scrutinizing Citrix's Virtual Apps and Desktop's architecture for potential security issues. The security vendor's examination showed that Citrix's app uses Microsoft's Message Queuing (MSMQ) service to receive recorded user session files and to store them in a separate storage manager component. In addition, watchTowr found Citrix using a Microsoft technology called BinaryFormatter to deserialize data in the storage manager component when needed. BinaryFormatter is technology that Microsoft itself has urged organizations to stop using as soon as possible because of security weaknesses that are no longer fixable, watchTowr said.

The vulnerabilities that watchTowr discovered involved a combination of an Internet-accessible MSMQ instance in the session recording component of Citrix's Virtual Apps and Desktop technology along with misconfigured permissions related to BinaryFormatter. "This isn't really a bug in the BinaryFormatter itself, nor a bug in MSMQ, but rather the unfortunate consequence of Citrix relying on the documented-to-be-insecure BinaryFormatter to maintain a security boundary," Harris says. "It's a 'bug' that manifested during the design phase, when Citrix decided which serialization library to use."

Harris says watchTowr reported the vulnerability as a single issue, whereas Citrix appears to have treated it as two separate issues.  

"While it is inarguable that Citrix's use of a BinaryFormatter with untrusted data is a de-facto bug, we don't have enough context to determine if exposing the MSMQ queue via HTTP is a really a bug, caused by a careless oversight, or a carefully calculated effect of some obscure business requirement."

Citrix's technologies are a frequent target for attackers because of the high-level of access the company's technology provides to enterprise applications and data. Many of the reported security flaws recently have impacted the company's NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway remote access platforms.

**About the Author**

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year career at Computerworld, Jai also covered a variety of other technology topics, including big data, Hadoop, Internet of Things, e-voting, and data analytics. Prior to Computerworld, Jai covered technology issues for The Economic Times in Bangalore, India. Jai has a Master's degree in Statistics and lives in Naperville, Ill.

Citrix Issues Patches for Zero-Day Recording Manager Bugs

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-9331-03 - An update for krb5 is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. Issues addressed include a memory leak vulnerability.

    The following advisory data is extracted from:https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_9331.jsonRed Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.- Packet Storm Staff====================================================================Red Hat Security AdvisorySynopsis:           Moderate: krb5 security updateAdvisory ID:        RHSA-2024:9331-03Product:            Red Hat Enterprise LinuxAdvisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:9331Issue date:         2024-11-12Revision:           03CVE Names:          CVE-2024-26458====================================================================Summary: An update for krb5 is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Moderate. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section.Description:Kerberos is a network authentication system, which can improve the security of your network by eliminating the insecure practice of sending passwords over the network in unencrypted form. It allows clients and servers to authenticate to each other with the help of a trusted third party, the Kerberos key distribution center (KDC).Security Fix(es):* krb5: Memory leak at /krb5/src/lib/rpc/pmap_rmt.c (CVE-2024-26458)* krb5: Memory leak at /krb5/src/lib/gssapi/krb5/k5sealv3.c (CVE-2024-26461)* krb5: Memory leak at /krb5/src/kdc/ndr.c (CVE-2024-26462)For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.Additional Changes:For detailed information on changes in this release, see the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.5 Release Notes linked from the References section.Solution:https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258CVEs:CVE-2024-26458References:https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/9/html/9.5_release_notes/indexhttps://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#moderatehttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266731https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266740https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266742

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-9331-03

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-9325-03 - An update for cockpit is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.

    The following advisory data is extracted from:https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_9325.jsonRed Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.- Packet Storm Staff====================================================================Red Hat Security AdvisorySynopsis:           Low: cockpit security updateAdvisory ID:        RHSA-2024:9325-03Product:            Red Hat Enterprise LinuxAdvisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:9325Issue date:         2024-11-12Revision:           03CVE Names:          CVE-2024-6126====================================================================Summary: An update for cockpit is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Low. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section.Description:Cockpit enables users to administer GNU/Linux servers using a web browser. It offers network configuration, log inspection, diagnostic reports, SELinux troubleshooting, interactive command-line sessions, and more.Security Fix(es):* cockpit: Authenticated user can kill any process when enabling pam_env's user_readenv option (CVE-2024-6126)For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.Additional Changes:For detailed information on changes in this release, see the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.5 Release Notes linked from the References section.Solution:https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258CVEs:CVE-2024-6126References:https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/9/html/9.5_release_notes/indexhttps://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#lowhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2292897https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-34216https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-46354https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-55860

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-9325-03

The security vulnerability is due to an exposed Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) instance and the use of the insecure BinaryFormatter.

Source: Brian Jackson via Alamy Stock PhotoSource:

\[Ed. note, Nov. 12 at 12:30 p.m. ET: Citrix has now issued patches for the issue and assigned CVE-2024-8068/CVE-2024-8069 for tracking.\]

An unpatched zero-day vulnerability in Citrix’s Session Recording Manager allows unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE, paving the way for data theft, lateral movement, and desktop takeover.

According to watchTowr research out today, the issue (which does not yet have a CVE or CVSS score) resides in Citrix's Session Recording Manager, which, as its name implies, records user activity, including keyboard and mouse inputs, websites visited, video streams of desktop activity, and more.

"Citrix advertises the feature as being really useful for monitoring (somewhat obviously), but also for compliance and troubleshooting. It can even be set up so that certain actions (like identifying sensitive data) will trigger recording, which helps meet regulatory needs and flag suspicious activities," the watchTowr researchers noted in the report.

The feature logs session recordings via Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ), which enables efficient data transfer from individual computers to centralized storage. However, the Citrix implementation uses BinaryFormatter for serialization and deserialization of the information for easier and more accurate transfer and storage. The utility is unfortunately well-known to be insecure.

Related:'GoIssue' Cybercrime Tool Targets GitHub Developers En Masse

BinaryFormatter is a .NET class created by Microsoft, which is in the process of deprecating it: "BinaryFormatter is insecure and can't be made secure. Applications should stop using \[it\] as soon as possible, even if they believe the data they're processing to be trustworthy," the computing giant said in August.

On top of the BinaryFormatter issue, Recording Session Manager also involves an exposed MSMQ service that can be reached from any host via HTTP. This, combined with what watchTowr says are misconfigured permissions, paves the way for unauthenticated RCE.

Dark Reading has reached out for comment and planned patching or mitigation information from both watchTowr and Citrix. There is no evidence of in-the-wild exploitation yet, but given Citrix's attractiveness as a cybercrime target, that could soon change.

Don't miss the upcoming free Dark Reading Virtual Event, "Know Your Enemy: Understanding Cybercriminals and Nation-State Threat Actors," Nov. 14 at 11 am ET. Don't miss sessions on understanding MITRE ATT&CK, using proactive security as a weapon, and a masterclass in incident response; and a host of top speakers like Larry Larson from the Navy Credit Federal Union, former Kaspersky Lab analyst Costin Raiu, Ben Read of Mandiant Intelligence, Rob Lee from SANS, and Elvia Finalle from Omdia. Register now!

Related:Citrix Issues Patches for Zero-Day Recording Manager Bugs

**About the Author**

Tara Seals has 20+ years of experience as a journalist, analyst and editor in the cybersecurity, communications and technology space. Prior to Dark Reading, Tara was Editor in Chief at Threatpost, and prior to that, the North American news lead for Infosecurity Magazine. She also spent 13 years working for Informa (formerly Virgo Publishing), as executive editor and editor-in-chief at publications focused on both the service provider and the enterprise arenas. A Texas native, she holds a B.A. from Columbia University, lives in Western Massachusetts with her family and is on a never-ending quest for good Mexican food in the Northeast.

Citrix 'Recording Manager' Zero-Day Bug Allows Unauthenticated RCE

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-8969-03 - An update is now available for Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Execution Environments.

    The following advisory data is extracted from:https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_8969.jsonRed Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.- Packet Storm Staff====================================================================Red Hat Security AdvisorySynopsis:           Moderate: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Execution Environments Container Release UpdateAdvisory ID:        RHSA-2024:8969-03Product:            Red Hat Ansible Automation PlatformAdvisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:8969Issue date:         2024-11-12Revision:           03CVE Names:          CVE-2024-8775====================================================================Summary: An update is now available for Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Execution EnvironmentsDescription:Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform provides an enterprise framework for building, deploying and managing IT automation at scale. IT Managers can provide top-down guidelines on how automation is applied to individual teams, while automation developers retain the freedom to write tasks that leverage existing knowledge without the overhead. Ansible Automation Platform makes it possible for users across an organization to share, vet, and manage automation content by means of a simple, powerful, and agentless language.Security Fix(es):* ansible-core: Exposure of Sensitive Information in Ansible Vault Files Due to Improper Logging (CVE-2024-8775)* ansible-core: Ansible-core user may read/write unauthorized content (CVE-2024-9902)For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.Updates and fixes:* ansible-core has been updated to 2.16.13 (ee-minimal 2.16 stream)* ansible-core has been updated to 2.17.6 (ee-minimal 2.17 stream)* ansible-core 2.18.0 has been added (ee-minimal 2.18 stream)Solution:CVEs:CVE-2024-8775References:https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#moderatehttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2312119https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2318271

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-8969-03

CISA should make its recommended goals mandatory and perform audits to ensure compliance.

Gary Barlet, Public Sector Chief Technology Officer, Illumio

November 12, 2024

5 Min Read

Source: Zoonar GmbH via Alamy Stock Photo

COMMENTARY  
Companies across the country are lining up to join the latest cybersecurity trend: the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Secure by Design pledge, a commitment aimed at software manufacturers that compels them to keep up with fundamental cybersecurity strategies. Companies such as Lenovo, Google, AWS, Cloudflare, and Microsoft have already signed on. 

On the face of it, the Secure by Design pledge is a good thing. Its seven goals each encourage manufacturers to adopt or increase the usage of a key cybersecurity strategy within one year. The goals, such as "implement multifactor authentication (MFA)" are worthy, if basic, and CISA encourages companies to document their progress. If they fall short, they are also encouraged to report that failure to CISA. 

The problem is that this pledge is entirely voluntary. Companies are free to sign it — or not — as they wish. And there's no regulatory compliance factored in. This means that if a company does sign the pledge and falls short of one or more goals, no one may ever know and no action will be taken. It will be as if the pledge never existed in the first place.   

Without teeth, the pledge is essentially worthless. Outside of highlighting the low-bar steps major companies should take to ensure their infrastructure is secured from the most common attacks (which, admittedly, is a good thing), it takes no steps to ensure that companies will actually do so. And it provides no repercussions if they fail.    

**Is the Honor System Good Enough?**

With data breaches up 72% in 2023 and the average cost of a breach estimated at $4.88 million, can we afford for our nation's technological infrastructure to be governed by the honor system? What happens when the next big cyberattack takes down a pillar of our society because the company responsible failed to implement MFA?  

I'd argue for a much more aggressive approach from our federal government. Given the potential for widespread disruptions inherent with any cybersecurity failure, we can't afford to take such a lax attitude toward securing our systems. The sanctity of our nation's airlines, power grids, and other critical infrastructure relies on stringent cybersecurity measures. Merely "suggesting" that companies institute basic protocols is not enough. We need to mandate it — and punish those who fail. 

**The EU's Higher Standard**

I look at the European Union's approach to setting standards for its electronic devices. In 2022,  the EU passed a law mandating electronics manufacturers move to a standardized charging port for their mobile devices. The EU's stance toward Apple, which famously used a proprietary Lightning charging port for its iPhones, was simply: Adapt or die. Apple adapted. As a result, iPhones in Europe are now sold with the standardized USB-C charging port, alongside every other mobile device. 

The EU did not fool around with vague suggestions or pledges. It saw the value to consumers of a standardized charging port and demanded that manufacturers make the change. Those that failed to comply were not allowed to sell their devices in Europe. Simple. Effective. 

You can also look closer to home, to California, for an example of this kind of confident action by the government. The government of California adopted the Zero Emissions Vehicle requirements in 1990, and has adjusted the rules over the ensuing decades as technology has evolved. The purpose was to protect the state's air from automotive pollution. The result has been a near industrywide reduction in auto emissions for the past 30 years. 

For vehicle manufacturers that want to sell cars in California, the largest economy in the United States, the equation was the same one facing Apple in the EU: Adapt or die. They could either engineer their vehicles to produce fewer emissions or simply not sell them in California. Most elected for the former option, and, as a result, automotive emission control technology has advanced further in the past 30 years than at any point since the automobile was introduced. 

**Adopting a Similar Approach**

To protect our cyber infrastructure, we need to adopt a similar approach. Instead of simply making recommendations, our nation's cybersecurity agency should be empowered to make regulations.  

CISA should begin by making its recommended goals mandatory, forcing software companies to do the following: 

●      Increase the use of MFA 

●      Reduce default passwords 

●      Enable a significant measurable reduction in the prevalence of one or more vulnerability classes 

●      Increase the installation of security patches by customers 

●      Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy 

●      Demonstrate transparency in vulnerability reporting. 

●      Increase the ability for customers to gather evidence of cybersecurity intrusions 

Next, CISA should perform audits to ensure compliance. Relying on companies to self-report is no different from giving them permission not to report. Look closely at CISA's list of pledgees and come back in a year to see how many of these vaunted companies will have willingly admitted they aren't taking the most basic steps toward protecting their users' data. 

Finally, CISA should be empowered to make a simple statement to software manufacturers that want to sell products in the US similar to what the EU said to electronics manufacturers and what California said to automobile manufacturers: Adapt or die. 

If you want to sell software in the US, you should have to follow basic principles that will ensure your software is safe. This should not be a "nice to have." It should be mandatory. The stakes are as high if not higher than with charging ports and automobile emissions. As we witnessed with the recent failure of cybersecurity software, the impact was felt across entire industries and resulted in billions of dollars in lost productivity. This is not a realm for timidity.    

Hi all -- please add this to all of your content at the bottom between now and Thursday -- I'm adding it to this week's news items now. Rashid, Fahmida Donahue, Jim Bracken, Becky Spiegelman, Karen Beek, Kristina

Don't miss the upcoming free Dark Reading Virtual Event, "Know Your Enemy: Understanding Cybercriminals and Nation-State Threat Actors," Nov. 14 at 11 a.m. ET. Don't miss sessions on understanding MITRE ATT&CK, using proactive security as a weapon, and a masterclass in incident response; and a host of top speakers like Larry Larsen from the Navy Credit Federal Union, former Kaspersky Lab analyst Costin Raiu, Ben Read of Mandiant Intelligence, Rob Lee from SANS, and Elvia Finalle from Omdia. Register now!

**About the Author**

Public Sector Chief Technology Officer, Illumio

Gary Barlet has nearly three decades of cloud, cybersecurity, and network experience in the US federal government leading security and IT teams in both civilian agencies and the Department of Defense (DoD). At Illumio, Gary works with government agencies, contractors, and the broader ecosystem to build in zero-trust segmentation as a strategic component of the government’s zero-trust architecture. Before joining Illumio, Gary served as the chief information officer at the Office of the Inspector General for the US Postal Service and served in the Air Force in several technology leadership capacities, retiring from his role as cyber operations officer.

The Power of the Purse: How to Ensure Security by Design

SlashNext researchers have discovered a new, sophisticated phishing tool GoIssue targeting GitHub developers. Learn about its capabilities, the…

SlashNext researchers have discovered a new, sophisticated phishing tool GoIssue targeting GitHub developers. Learn about its capabilities, the impact in case of successful attacks, and how to protect yourself from this growing threat.

Cybersecurity researchers at SlashNext have identified a new threat called GoIssue. This advanced tool, possibly linked to the GitLoker extortion campaign, enables attackers to carry out large-scale phishing attacks aimed at GitHub users.

According to SlashNext’s investigation, shared with Hackread.com ahead of publishing on Tuesday, GoIssue can also harvest email addresses from public GitHub profiles.

“At its core, the tool systematically harvests email addresses from public GitHub profiles, using automated processes and GitHub tokens to collect data based on various criteria – from organization memberships to stargazer lists,” the blog post read.

GoIssue is priced at $700 for a custom build or $3,000 for full source code access. The attackers can use it to execute complex, targeted campaigns against the GitHub developer community. They can harvest email addresses from public profiles and use them in mass phishing campaigns using fake notifications.

GoIssue ad – Screenshot: SlashNext

This means the impact of GoIssue-powered attacks could be broad. These campaigns could lead to a phishing page, malware download, or a rogue OAuth app authorization prompt, granting access to private repositories and data.

Not only can individual developers be compromised, but entire organizations can be at risk. Successful attacks could lead to source code theft, supply chain attacks, and corporate network breaches.

According to SlashNext’s **report**, Cyberluffy, a member of the GitLoker Team, has been linked to the GoIssue tool, which is believed to be an extension of the GitLoker campaign. The connection between GoIssue and the GitLoker campaign is a cause for serious concern. Both tools share a common target and employ similar tactics, suggesting a potential collaboration or evolution of the same threat actor. 

The Gitloker campaign refers to a recent series of cyberattacks targeting GitHub users, primarily focused on extortion. The attackers, known as “Gitloker” on Telegram, used various techniques, including phishing attacks, to compromise user accounts and sensitive data.

GitHub users should adopt best online security practices, such as strong password hygiene, enabling Two-Factor Authentication (**2FA**), being cautious of phishing emails, and regularly reviewing OAuth app permissions and revocation of unnecessary ones.

These measures help protect against potential compromises and ensure the safety of all users, including GitHub. By understanding the capabilities of GoIssue and the tactics employed by attackers, developers can take the necessary steps to protect themselves and their organizations from possible damage.

Jason Soroko, Senior Fellow at Sectigo weighed in on the situation calling out GoIssue as a major threat to not only GitHub but other developer platforms as well.

_“_The emergence of GoIssue signals a new era where developer platforms become high-stakes battlegrounds, and security defences must evolve rapidly to counteract this pervasive threat,_“_ explained Jason.

_“_By automating email address harvesting and executing large-scale, customized phishing campaigns, this tool enables attackers to exploit trusted developer environments,_“_ he warned. _“_As usual, the attacker’s goal is credential theft using OAuth-based repository hijacks. The bad guys know what they are doing. This is a high-impact attack mechanism that specifically preys on the trust and openness of the developer community._“_

Tag

#auth