This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

InsightAppSec GitHub Integration Keeps Risky Code From Reaching Production

 

Description

InsightAppSec GitHub Integration Keeps Risky Code From Reaching Production

We’ve all been there. The software development life cycle (SDLC) is moving at a mile a minute. Developers are writing code, updating features, and all the while attempting to keep everything introduced into production as safe and secure as possible. GitHub Actions are essential to automation and allow you to build, test, and deploy your code right from GitHub, faster than ever.

But it comes with risks.

How can you be sure your running applications aren’t vulnerable to exploitation? How will we know it’s problematic before it gets into production? Can we realistically perform kick-off, test, and provide feedback to development not using automation?

Secure apps through automation

A DevSecOps mindset is needed, with security baked into the SDLC — and now, GitHub Actions makes this easier than ever. This new integration — offered completely free to InsightAppSec customers — allows security and development teams to automate dynamic application security testing (DAST) as part of the CI/CD build pipeline workflow. For example, you can easily configure the integration to scan your team’s work for vulnerabilities, and if high-severity vulnerabilities are found, you can have it notify and/or block risky code before it reaches production environments.

Here’s how it works:

InsightAppSec GitHub Integration Keeps Risky Code From Reaching Production

All this happens automatically, so your team isn’t spending time finding and communicating application risk — they’re focusing on building a great application security program.

That’s not where the benefits end, however.

****1)********It helps integrate DevOps into the Security workflow:**** In order to help build a Dev SecOps mindset across teams, this integration allows DevOps and Security teams to work together earlier in the lifecycle, improving cross-team outcomes and making your organization safer.

****2)********Automate DAST as part of your CI/CD workflow:**** This integration fits in seamlessly with what you’re already doing, and automatically provides the vulnerability information your teams need to stay aware of risk and keep unsafe code out of your prod environments.

****3) Quick and easy setup:**** Simply add the IAS Scan steps to your build pipeline as defined in the insightappsec-scan-github-action repo (assuming you have valid Github and InsightAppSec licenses).

And it is all for free. We’re continuously working to make InsightAppSec the easiest and most powerful security platform for your web applications and teaming with Github will supercharge your development lifecycle in the safest way possible, automatically.

Want to learn more? Here’s what you need to know about this integration.

_Additional reading: _

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Chinese Hackers Target VMware Horizon Servers with Log4Shell to Deploy Rootkit

 

Description

A Chinese advanced persistent threat tracked as Deep Panda has been observed exploiting the Log4Shell vulnerability in VMware Horizon servers to deploy a backdoor and a novel rootkit on infected machines with the goal of stealing sensitive data.

“The nature of targeting was opportunistic insofar that multiple infections in several countries and various sectors occurred on the same dates,” said Rotem Sde-Or and Eliran Voronovitch, researchers with Fortinet’s FortiGuard Labs, in a report released this week. “The victims belong to the financial, academic, cosmetics, and travel industries.”

Deep Panda, also known by the monikers Shell Crew, KungFu Kittens, and Bronze Firestone, is said to have been active since at least 2010, with recent attacks “targeting legal firms for data exfiltration and technology providers for command-and-control infrastructure building,” according to Secureworks.

Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which assigned the panda-themed name to the threat cluster all the way back in July 2014, called it “one of the most advanced Chinese nation-state cyber intrusion groups.”

The latest set of attacks documented by Fortinet shows that the infection procedure involved the exploitation of the Log4j remote code execution flaw (aka Log4Shell) in vulnerable VMware Horizon servers to spawn a chain of intermediate stages, ultimately leading to the deployment of a backdoor dubbed Milestone (“1.dll”).

Based on the leaked source code of the infamous Gh0st RAT but with notable differences in the command-and-control (C2) communication mechanism employed, Milestone is also designed to send information about the current sessions on the system to the remote server.

Also detected during the attacks is a kernel rootkit called “Fire Chili” that’s digitally signed with stolen certificates from game development companies, enabling it to evade detection by security software and conceal malicious file operations, processes, registry key additions, and network connections.

This is achieved by means of ioctl (input/output control) system calls to hide the driver rootkit’s registry key, the Milestone backdoor files, and the loader file and process used to launch the implant.

Fortinet’s attribution to Deep Panda stems from overlaps between Milestone and Infoadmin RAT, a remote access trojan used by the sophisticated hacking collective in the early 2010s, with additional clues pointing to tactical similarities to that of the Winnti group.

This is backed by the use of compromised digital signatures belonging to gaming companies, a target of choice for Winnti, as well as a C2 domain (gnisoft[.]com), which has been previously linked to the Chinese state-sponsored actor as of May 2020.

“The reason these tools are linked to two different groups is unclear at this time,” the researchers said. “It’s possible that the groups’ developers shared resources, such as stolen certificates and C2 infrastructure, with each other. This may explain why the samples were only signed several hours after being compiled.”

The disclosure adds to a long list of hacking groups that have weaponized the Log4Shell vulnerability to strike VMware’s virtualization platform.

In December 2021, CrowdStrike described an unsuccessful campaign undertaken by an adversary dubbed Aquatic Panda that leveraged the flaw to perform various post-exploitation operations, including reconnaissance and credential harvesting on targeted systems.

Since then, multiple groups have joined the fray, including the Iranian TunnelVision group, which was observed actively exploiting the Log4j logging library defect to compromise unpatched VMware Horizon servers with ransomware.

Most recently, cybersecurity company Sophos highlighted a slew of attacks against vulnerable Horizon servers that have been ongoing since January and have been mounted by threat actors to illicitly mine cryptocurrency, install PowerShell-based reverse shells, or to deploy Atera agents to remotely deliver additional payloads.

“Attempts to compromise Horizon servers are among the more targeted exploits of Log4Shell vulnerabilities because of their nature,” Sophos researchers said, adding “platforms such as Horizon are particularly attractive targets to all types of malicious actors because they are widespread and can (if still vulnerable) easily found and exploited with well-tested tools.”

RCE Bug in Spring Cloud Could Be the Next Log4Shell, Researchers Warn

 

Description

NOTE: This post is about the confirmed and patched vulnerability tracked as CVE-2022-22963. While the researchers at Sysdig refer to this Spring Cloud bug as “Spring4Shell,” it should be noted that there is some confusion as to what to call it, with another security firm referring to a different, unconfirmed bug in Spring Core as “Spring4Shell.” To avoid confusion, this post has been amended to take out references to Spring4Shell altogether.

A concerning security vulnerability has bloomed in the Spring Cloud Function, which could lead to remote code execution (RCE) and the compromise of an entire internet-connected host.

Some researchers have noted that because of its ease of exploit and Java-based nature, it’s reminiscent of the Log4Shell vulnerability discovered in December.

“[This] is another in a series of major Java vulnerabilities,” Stefano Chierici, a security researcher at Sysdig, noted in materials shared with Threatpost. “It has a very low bar for exploitation so we should expect to see attackers heavily scanning the internet. Once found, they will likely install cryptominers, [distributed denial-of-service] DDoS agents, or their remote-access toolkits.”

The bug (CVE-2022-22963) affects versions 3.1.6 and 3.2.2, as well as older, unsupported versions, according to a Tuesday advisory from VMware. Users should update to 3.1.7 and 3.2.3 in order to implement a patch.

Why Such a Low CVSS Score?

While it carries a medium-severity score of 5.4 on the CVSS scale, researchers warned not to underestimate the bug’s impact.

“VMware is using the CVSSv3 base metric ‘CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L.’ This is underrepresenting the confidentiality, integrity and availability impacts of this vulnerability,” Sysdig researchers Nick Lang and Jason Avery told Threatpost. “This vulnerability allows an attacker to open a reverse shell in the context of the Spring Cloud service, which may be as root. The impacts are all high and do not require user interaction, which gives this CVE a critical rating.”

They added, “In our testing, we verified that user interaction is not required to leverage the CVE-2022-22963 vulnerability to gain unauthorized access.”

Satnam Narang, staff research engineer, Tenable, agrees with the assessment that the CVSS score may not be reflective of the true impact of the issue.

“Because the vulnerability is considered a remote code execution flaw that can be exploited by an unauthenticated attacker, it appears that the CVSSv3 score might not reflect the actual impact of this flaw,” he said via email.

Paul Ducklin, principle research scientist at Sophos, noted that it alarmingly allows for “instant RCE.”

“My recommendation is simple, and doesn’t need a score: Patch against CVE-2022-22693 because it’s attracting lots of interest, and proof-of-concept code is readily available, so why be behind when you could so easily be ahead?” he told Threatpost.

Widescale Consequences Set to Sprout

Spring Cloud is an open-source microservices framework: A collection of ready-to-use components which are useful in building distributed applications in an enterprise. It’s widely used across industries by various companies and includes ready-made integration with components from various app providers, including Kubernetes and Netflix.

As such, its footprint is concerning, according to Sysdig.

“Spring is…used by millions of developers using Spring Framework to create high-performing, easily testable code,” Chierici said. “The Spring Cloud Function framework allows developers to write cloud-agnostic functions using Spring features. These functions can be stand-alone classes and one can easily deploy them on any cloud platform to build a serverless framework.”

He added, “Since Spring Cloud Function can be used in Cloud serverless functions like AWS lambda or Google Cloud Functions, those functions might be impacted as well…leading the attackers inside your cloud account.”

The CVE-2022-22963 Bug in Bloom

According to Sysdig, the vulnerability can be exploited over HTTP: Just like Log4Shell, it only requires an attacker to send a malicious string to a Java app’s HTTP service.

“Using routing functionality, it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted Spring Expression Language (SpEL) as a routing-expression to access local resources and execute commands in the host,” Chierici explained. “The issue with CVE-2022-22963 is that it permits using HTTP request header spring.cloud.function.routing-expression parameter and SpEL expression to be injected and executed through StandardEvaluationContext.”

As such, unfortunately, an exploit is “quite easy to accomplish” using a simple curl command he noted:

curl -i -s -k -X $’POST’ -H $’Host: 192.168.1.2:8080′ -H $’spring.cloud.function.routing-expression:T(java.lang.Runtime).getRuntime().exec(\”touch /tmp/test”)’ –data-binary $’exploit_poc’ $’http://192.168.1.2:8080/functionRouter

<CURL>

Sysdig published a PoC exploit on its GitHub page, and as noted, others are circulating.

“The PoCs we’ve seen so far have all simply popped up a calculator app, that being more than enough to prove the point, but it looks as though any command already installed on the server could easily be launched,” noted Ducklin, who refers to the bug as the “Spring Expression Resource Access Vulnerability” or “SPEL Vulnerability.”

He added, “This includes remotely triggering web downloader programs such as curl, launching command shells such as bash, or indeed doing both of those in sequence as a way of quietly and quickly implanting malware.”

Weeding Out Compromises

After applying the patch, anyone using applications built using Spring Cloud should take a careful inventory of their installations to make sure compromise hasn’t already occurred, according to Sysdig.

“Even though you might have already upgraded your library or applied one of the other mitigations on containers affected by the vulnerability, you need to detect any exploitation attempts and post-breach activities in your environment,” Chierici said.

That detection can be done via image scanners or a runtime detection engine to suss out malicious behaviors in already-deployed hosts or pods, he noted.

“The best defense for this type of vulnerability is to patch as soon as possible,” according to Sysdig’s writeup. “Having a clear understanding of the packages being used in your environment is a must in today’s world.”

Log4JShell Used to Swarm VMware Servers with Miners, Backdoors

 

Description

What researchers are calling a “horde” of miner bots and backdoors are using the Log4Shell bug to take over vulnerable VMware Horizon servers, with threat actors still actively waging some attacks.

On Tuesday, Sophos reported that the remote code execution (RCE) Log4j vulnerability in the ubiquitous Java logging library is under active attack, “particularly among cryptocurrency mining bots.” Besides cryptominers, attackers are also prying open Log4Shell to deliver backdoors that Sophos believes are initial access brokers (IABs) that could lay the groundwork for later ransomware infections.

History of Log4Shell Nightmare-ware

The Log4j flaw was discovered in December, vigorously attacked within hours of its discovery and subsequently dubbed Log4Shell. Sophos’s findings about VMware Horizon servers being besieged by threat actors leveraging the bug is in keeping with what’s been happening since then: In fact, cyberattacks increased 50 percent YoY in 2021, peaking in December, due to a frenzy of Log4j exploits.

With millions of Log4j-targeted attacks clocking in per hour since the flaw’s discovery, within just a few weeks, there was a record-breaking peak of 925 cyberattacks per week per organization, globally, as Check Point Research (CPR) reported in early January.

Log4Shell has been a nightmare for organizations to hunt down and remediate, given that the flaw affected hundreds of software products, “making it difficult for some organizations to assess their exposure,” noted Sophos researchers Gabor Szappanos and Sean Gallagher in Tuesday’s report. In other words, some outfits don’t necessarily know if they’re vulnerable.

Why Attackers Have Zeroed in on Horizon

In particular, those attacks have included ones targeting vulnerable VMware Horizon servers: a platform that serves up virtual desktops and apps across the hybrid cloud. These servers have been important tools in organizations’ arsenals over the past few years, given that the pandemic triggered the necessity to provide work-from-home tools, the researchers pointed out.

Although VMware released patched versions of Horizon earlier this month – on March 8 – many organizations may not have been able to deploy the patched version or apply workarounds, if they even know that they’re vulnerable to begin with.

“Attempts to compromise Horizon servers are among the more targeted exploits of Log4Shell vulnerabilities because of their nature,” Sophos said.

Even those organizations that have applied the patches or workarounds may have been already compromised in other ways, given the backdoors and reverse-shell activity Sophos has tracked, the researchers cautioned.

In late December and January, VMWare’s Horizon servers with Log4Shell vulnerabilities came under Cobalt Strike attack, as flagged by researchers at Huntress. Other attacks included those that installed web shells.

Those attacks used the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) resource call of Log4j to retrieve a malicious Java class file that modified existing, legitimate Java code, injecting a web shell into the VM Blast Secure Gateway service and thereby granting attackers remote access and code execution. Sophos has seen these attacks show up in customer telemetry since the beginning of January, the researchers said.

The attacks against Horizon servers grew throughout January. Beyond attempts to deploy cryptocurrency-mining malware, other attacks were potentially designed either to grant threat actors initial access or to infect targets with ransomware, Sophos said. Such attacks have continued into this month: the security firm shared a bar chart, shown below, that shows the ebb and flow of the attacks that have bled into mid-March.

VMware Horizon server attacks since the beginning of January. Source: Sophos.

“The largest wave of Log4J attacks aimed at Horizon that we have detected began January 19, and is still ongoing,” the researchers said.

But this wave hasn’t relied on the use of one of cybercrooks’ favorite tools, Cobalt Strike: a commercial penetration-testing tool that can be used to deploy beacons on systems in order to simulate attacks and test network defenses.

Rather, “the cryptominer installer script is directly executed from the Apache Tomcat component of the Horizon server,” Sophos said, with the most frequently used server in the campaigns being 80.71.158.96.

The Payloads

Sophos found a slew of miners being dumped on targeted Horizon servers, including z0Miner, the JavaX miner and at least two variants – the Jin and Mimu cryptocurrency miner bots – of the XMRig commercial cryptominer,. Speaking of which, Uptycs reported in January that cryptojackers had figured out how to inject XMRig into VMware’s vSphere services, undetected. For its part, back in September 2021, Trend Micro found that z0Miner operators were exploiting the Atlassian Confluence RCE (CVE-2021-26084) for cryptojacking attacks.

Sophos also found several backdoors, including several legitimate testing tools. One such was implants of Sliver: a tool used by red teams and penetration testers to emulate adversarial tactics. Sliver showed up as a precursor to the Jin miner in all the cases where Sophos was able to investigate further, leading the researchers to suspect that it’s actually the payload. Either that, or maybe the actor behind Sliver might be a ransomware gang, the researchers hypothesized, given that the same servers deploying Sliver also hosted files to deliver the Atera agent as a payload.

Atera is another common, legitimate remote monitoring and management tool. However, the threat actors aren’t attacking existing Atera installations, per se, the researchers said. Rather, “they install their own Atera agents in order to use the Atera cloud management infrastructure to deploy additional payloads in the future,” they explained.

Sophos also found the legitimate Splashtop Streamer remote-access tool being downloaded and installed on infected systems, “probably as an automated task for the new clients.”

As well, there were several PowerShell-based reverse shells in the payload mix that had been dropped by the Log4Shell exploits.

Two Types of Reverse Shells

Sophos found two types of reverse shell: one, a shorter script that opens a socket connection to a remote server and executes the received buffer, which is supposed to be a PowerShell command.

They also found a larger variant of a reverse shell: one that can reflectively load a Windows binary, with the loader as an encrypted and base64 encoded blob, as depicted below:

Base64 encoded blob. Source: Sophos.

Sophos telemetry showed that while z0Miner, JavaX and some other payloads were downloaded directly by the web shells that had been used for initial compromise, the Jin bots were tied to use of Sliver and used the same wallets as Mimo, “suggesting these three malware were used by the same actor,” Sophos said. Researchers believe that Jin is, in fact, “simply a rebranded version of Mimo.”

Loads of New Malware Loaders

New malware loaders are springing up like dandelions in the spring. Besides the ones covered by Sophos in Tuesday’s report, security researchers at Symantec today also published a technical report on a new malware loader tracked as Verblecon that’s escaped detection due to the polymorphic nature of its code.

Verblecon has likewise been seen in attacks that install cryptocurrency miners on compromised machines.

Saryu Nayyar, CEO and founder of Gurucul, told Threatpost that in order to fight the legitimate assessment tools being used to breach organizations, it’s also “critical” to employ sophisticated technologies – namely, self-training machine learning and behavioral models – to sniff out exploitation of exposed vulnerabilities as well as to detect the remote surveillance done by attackers with tools such as Cobalt Strike, et al.

“Current [extended detection and response, or XDR] and traditional [security information and event management, or SIEM] solutions, even with claims of User Entity Behavior Analytics rooted in known patterns and rule-based artificial intelligence, are unable to adapt to these methods,” she told Threatpost via email. “Organizations need to invest in solutions that employ transparent non rule-based machine learning models to more rapidly identify new attacks.”

Chris Olson, CEO of digital safety platform The Media Trust, told Threatpost on Tuesday that polymorphic techniques “are just another way to hide malicious intentions, along with checks for security tools and live environments.”

This attack provides another example of how the risks of Web 2.0 are being replicated in Web 3.0, he said via email.

“Today’s embryonic beginnings of Web 3.0 are eerily reminiscent of the Web as it existed in the 1990s, showing sporadic signs of vulnerability that may well foreshadow a future era of cyber chaos,” Olson said.

To prevent that from happening, we must learn from our past mistakes, he warned. “Today’s digital ecosystem is riddled with threats because Web 2.0 was not designed for cybersecurity from the outset. Untrusted third parties were allowed to proliferate, leading to phishing attacks, malicious advertising, rampant data privacy abuse and other threats that are hard to fix in the present. With Web 3.0, we have a chance to account for potential attack vectors by design – otherwise, the same issues will replicate themselves with greater potency than ever.”

Muhstik Botnet Targeting Redis Servers Using Recently Disclosed Vulnerability

 

Description

Muhstik, a botnet infamous for propagating via web application exploits, has been observed targeting Redis servers using a recently disclosed vulnerability in the database system.

The vulnerability relates to CVE-2022-0543, a Lua sandbox escape flaw in the open-source, in-memory, key-value data store that could be abused to achieve remote code execution on the underlying machine. The vulnerability is rated 10 out of 10 for severity.

“Due to a packaging issue, a remote attacker with the ability to execute arbitrary Lua scripts could possibly escape the Lua sandbox and execute arbitrary code on the host,” Ubuntu noted in an advisory released last month.

According to telemetry data gathered by Juniper Threat Labs, the attacks leveraging the new flaw are said to have commenced on March 11, 2022, leading to the retrieval of a malicious shell script (“russia.sh”) from a remote server, which is then utilized to fetch and execute the botnet binaries from another server.

First documented by Chinese security firm Netlab 360, Muhstik is known to be active since March 2018 and is monetized for carrying out coin mining activities and staging distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.

Capable of self-propagating on Linux and IoT devices like GPON home router, DD-WRT router, and Tomato routers, Muhstik has been spotted weaponizing a number of flaws over the years –

  • CVE-2017-10271 (CVSS score: 7.5) – An input validation vulnerability in the Oracle WebLogic Server component of Oracle Fusion Middleware
  • CVE-2018-7600 (CVSS score: 9.8) – Drupal remote code execution vulnerability
  • CVE-2019-2725 (CVSS score: 9.8) – Oracle WebLogic Server remote code execution vulnerability
  • CVE-2021-26084 (CVSS score: 9.8) – An OGNL (Object-Graph Navigation Language) injection flaw in Atlassian Confluence, and
  • CVE-2021-44228 (CVSS score: 10.0) – Apache Log4j remote code execution vulnerability (aka Log4Shell)

“This bot connects to an IRC server to receive commands which include the following: download files, shell commands, flood attacks, [and] SSH brute force,” Juniper Threat Labs researchers said in a report published last week.

In light of active exploitation of the critical security flaw, users are highly recommended to move quickly to patch their Redis services to the latest version.

CVE-2022-0847: Arbitrary File Overwrite Vulnerability in Linux Kernel

 

Description

CVEDisclosureAttackerKBIVM ContentPatching UrgencyBlog’s Last Update
CVE-2022-0847Original disclosureAttackerKBMarch 10, 2022When practicalMarch 10, 2022 3:21 PM EST

CVE-2022-0847: Arbitrary File Overwrite Vulnerability in Linux Kernel

On March 7, 2022, CM4all security researcher Max Kellermann published technical details on CVE-2022-0847, an arbitrary file overwrite vulnerability in versions 5.8+ of the Linux kernel. Nicknamed “Dirty Pipe,” the vulnerability arises from incorrect Unix pipe handling, where unprivileged processes can corrupt read-only files. Successful exploitation allows local attackers to escalate privileges by modifying or overwriting typically inaccessible files — potentially including root passwords and SUID binaries.

CVE-2022-0847 affects Linux kernel versions since 5.8. Read Rapid7’s full technical analysis of the vulnerability in AttackerKB, including PoC and patch analysis.

While CVSS is not yet available, CVE-2022-0847 will likely carry a “High” severity rating rather than a “Critical” one given the authentication requirement. Multiple public exploits are available, including a proof of concept from the original disclosure and a Metasploit module. We are not aware of any reports of exploitation in the wild as of March 9, 2022.

This is a “patch, but no need to panic” situation. With that said, a few factors make this bug stand out a bit more than the average local privilege escalation (LPE) vuln. First and foremost, this is a simple attack to execute once initial access has been obtained, and it offers adversaries broad avenues for privileged operations after sensitive files (like root passwords) have been modified. Security researchers have also demonstrated that in some cases, public exploit code can be used to escape containers in that files modified inside the container also get modified on the host. Finally, the lingering specter of Log4Shell means that there may be a higher chance that attackers already have local access required to execute a privilege escalation attack on Linux systems.

Updates to Linux distributions have been trickling out. Organizations should apply the latest patches as soon as they are available and reboot systems.

Rapid7 customers

The March 10 content release for InsightVM and Nexpose includes checks for CVE-2022-0847 for Debian, Ubuntu, and SUSE. Coverage for Amazon Linux, Red Hat Linux, and CentOS Linux is available in the March 11 content update.

NEVER MISS A BLOG

InsightVM Scan Engine: Understanding MAC Address Discovery

 

Description

InsightVM Scan Engine: Understanding MAC Address Discovery

Written in collaboration with Jimmy Cancilla

When scanning an asset, one key piece of data that the InsightVM Scan Engine collects is the MAC address of the network interface used during the connection. The MAC address is one of several attributes used by the Security Console to perform asset correlation. As a result of the volatile nature of IP addresses, identifying assets using the MAC address can provide increased reliability when integrating scan results. In some cases, the MAC address can be used as a rudimentary means of fingerprinting an asset. Several manufacturers will use the same first 3 bytes when assigning a MAC address to a device (for example, several CISCO SYSTEMS, INC devices use 00000C as the MAC address prefix).

When performing an authenticated scan (a scan whereby the engine has the necessary credentials to authenticate to the target), collecting the MAC address is relatively straightforward, as all operating systems provide tooling to gather this information. However, collecting the MAC address with an unauthenticated scan (a scan where no credentials are provided) is less reliable. This is due to limitations of network protocols and modern network topologies.

Breaking down IP protocols

In order to understand these limitations, it is important to first understand the fundamentals of the IP protocol suite.

The IP protocol suite can be thought of in 4 layers:

InsightVM Scan Engine: Understanding MAC Address Discovery

The MAC address is part of the bottom layer called the Link Layer. The MAC address is used by the hardware when communicating with other devices on the same network equipment. Any devices communicating at the Link layer do so without the use of routers.

On the other hand, IP addresses are part of the Network layer. IP addresses are used to communicate with devices across different networks, traversing through routers.

MAC address discovery with unauthenticated scans

This leads to the limitation in unauthenticated scans. When performing an unauthenticated scan against assets that are accessed via a router, the scan engine is only able to communicate with that asset via the Network layer. The implications of this are that the MAC address is not included in the network packets received by the scan engine. This is not a limitation or defect of the scan engine, but rather a reality of the IP protocol suite and modern network infrastructure.

To work around these limitations in the IP protocol suite, the InsightVM scan engine uses several alternative methods to attempt to collect the MAC address of assets being scanned. In general, these alternative methods attempt to authenticate to an asset over various protocols using known default credentials. As a result of this capability in the scan engine, asset results from unauthenticated scans may include the MAC address despite being scanned over a router. However, it is important to note that the success rate is dependent on whether assets are configured to allow authentication using default credentials.

****Note:SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 are more likely than most protocols to be configured with known default credentials.

Summary

The following tables outline the different methods that the scan engine will use to collect MAC addresses from targets, and whether or not authentication is required.

Windows

MethodAuthenticated or unauthenticated scan
via SMB protocolAuthenticated
via WMI protocolAuthenticated
Scan AssistantAuthenticated
SNMPv1 or SNMPv2Authenticated or unauthenticated

Note: Collecting the MAC address via SNMPv1 or SNMPv2 with an unauthenticated scan is only possible if the scan engine can authenticate using the default credentials for these protocols. However, it is not recommended that default credentials be left enabled as this poses a serious security risk.

Linux

MethodAuthenticated or unauthenticated scan
Via SSH protocolAuthenticated
Via an insecure Telnet protocolAuthenticated

Note: Running an insecure Telnet server on an asset is a serious security risk and is not recommended.
SNMPv1 or SNMPv2 | Authenticated or unauthenticated

Note: Collecting the MAC address via SNMPv1 or SNMPv2 with an unauthenticated scan is only possible if the scan engine can authenticate using the default credentials for these protocols. However, it is not recommended that default credentials be left enabled as this poses a serious security risk.

Over the years, the engineering team here at Rapid7 has partnered with dozens of security teams to identify pain points and develop solutions. The importance of collecting the MAC address for targets being scanned is well understood. As a result, the InsightVM Scan Engine has been designed to utilize a multi-pronged approach to collecting MAC addresses from assets.