Top 10-2017 A9-Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities

From OWASP
Revision as of 12:11, 1 January 2018 by T.Gigler (talk | contribs) (Editorial changes e.g. line feeds, added links)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
← A8-Insecure Deserialization
2017 Table of Contents

PDF version

A10-Insufficient Logging&Monitoring →
Threat Agents / Attack Vectors Security Weakness Impacts
App Specific Exploitability: 2
Prevalence: 3
Detectability: 2
Technical: 2
Business ?
While it is easy to find already-written exploits for many known vulnerabilities, other vulnerabilities require concentrated effort to develop a custom exploit.  Prevalence of this issue is very widespread. Component-heavy development patterns can lead to development teams not even understanding which components they use in their application or API, much less keeping them up to date.
Some scanners such as retire.js help in detection, but determining exploitability requires additional effort.
While some known vulnerabilities lead to only minor impacts, some of the largest breaches to date have relied on exploiting known vulnerabilities in components. Depending on the assets you are protecting, perhaps this risk should be at the top of the list.
Is the Application Vulnerable?

You are likely vulnerable:

  • If you do not know the versions of all components you use (both client-side and server-side). This includes components you directly use as well as nested dependencies.
  • If software is vulnerable, unsupported, or out of date. This includes the OS, web/application server, database management system (DBMS), applications, APIs and all components, runtime environments, and libraries.
  • If you do not scan for vulnerabilities regularly and subscribe to security bulletins related to the components you use.
  • If you do not fix or upgrade the underlying platform, frameworks, and dependencies in a risk-based, timely fashion. This commonly happens in environments when patching is a monthly or quarterly task under change control, which leaves organizations open to many days or months of unnecessary exposure to fixed vulnerabilities.
  • If software developers do not test the compatibility of updated, upgraded, or patched libraries.
  • If you do not secure the components' configurations (see  A6:2017-Security Misconfiguration).
How to Prevent

There should be a patch management process in place to:

  • Remove unused dependencies, unnecessary features, components, files, and documentation.
  • Continuously inventory the versions of both client-side and server-side components (e.g. frameworks, libraries) and their dependencies using tools like versionsDependencyCheck, retire.js, etc. Continuously monitor sources like CVE and NVD for vulnerabilities in the components. Use software composition analysis tools to automate the process. Subscribe to email alerts for security vulnerabilities related to components you use.
  • Only obtain components from official sources over secure links. Prefer signed packages to reduce the chance of including a modified, malicious component.
  • Monitor for libraries and components that are unmaintained or do not create security patches for older versions. If patching is not possible, consider deploying a virtual patch to monitor, detect, or protect against the discovered issue.

Every organization must ensure that there is an ongoing plan for monitoring, triaging, and applying updates or configuration changes for the lifetime of the application or portfolio.

Example Attack Scenarios

Scenario #1: Components typically run with the same privileges as the application itself, so flaws in any component can result in serious impact. Such flaws can be accidental (e.g. coding error) or intentional (e.g. backdoor in component). Some example exploitable component vulnerabilities discovered are:

  • CVE-2017-5638, a Struts 2 remote code execution vulnerability that enables execution of arbitrary code on the server, has been blamed for significant breaches.
  • While internet of things (IoT) are frequently difficult or impossible to patch, the importance of patching them can be great (e.g. biomedical devices).

There are automated tools to help attackers find unpatched or misconfigured systems. For example, the Shodan IoT search engine can help you find devices that still suffer from Heartbleed vulnerability that was patched in April 2014.

References

OWASP

External

← A8-Insecure Deserialization
2017 Table of Contents

PDF version

A10-Insufficient Logging&Monitoring →

© 2002-2017 OWASP Foundation This document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Some rights reserved. CC-by-sa-3 0-88x31.png