Security Digest (June 2024)

Advanced Computer Technologies Security Digest for June 2023

July 2024

As always, Advanced is proud to be here for all your security needs. Reach out now ([email protected]) to determine how you can improve your security posture and keep your business running!

– The Advanced Security Task Force

Patch Tuesday – 6/11

The 2nd Tuesday of every month is Patch Tuesday! Every Patch Tuesday, Microsoft addresses security vulnerabilities in their products via a large deployment of software updates. This month’s Patch Tuesday addressed 51 security vulnerabilities. The full list can be seen here.

Advanced Computer Technologies - Security Update (July 2024)

Windows products received the most patches this month with 33, followed by Extended Security Updates (ESU) with 23, and Azure/Microsoft Office with 5.

Advanced Computer Technologies - Security Update (July 2024)

Of the 61 vulnerabilities addressed, 49% addressed Elevation of Privilege, 35% represented Remote Code Execution, and 10% represented denial of service.

Deep Dive: CVSS Breakdown On Critical Vulnerability

Microsoft assesses threats based on the theoretical worst possible outcome were a vulnerability to be exploited. The assessment factors in how easily a vulnerability can be exploited, and what damage could be done.

Advanced Computer Technologies - Security Update (April 2024)

Of these 51 vulnerabilities, 1 is considered Critical. Details on this vulnerability can be seen below:

  • CVE-2024-30080: Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Microsoft Message Queuing, or MSMQ, is a messaging protocol that allows applications running on separate servers/processes to communicate in a failsafe manner. A queue is a temporary storage location from which messages can be sent and received reliably, as and when conditions permit. This enables communication across networks and between computers, running Windows, which may not always be connected. Delivery will occur when the process on the other end ‘wakes up’ and receives notification of the message’s arrival. As this is a communication service, Windows PCs and servers are often in a state of waiting for MSMQ messages (or, ‘Listening’), leaving them particularly vulnerable to attackers.

CVE-2024-30080 involves targeting a vulnerable device with a series of specially crafted MSMQ packets in a rapid sequence over HTTP to a MSMQ server. This could result in remote code execution on the server side.

It is of note that this vulnerability is regarded as a 9.8/10. Let’s look at the Common Vulnerabilities Scoring System to determine how this number is generated. Below, you’ll see the official designation of this vulnerability from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (or NIST).

Advanced Computer Technologies - Security Update (April 2024)

Using the above scoring system, we can start to translate the string of values and calculate our total risk score. Note the string below:

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

 

While this may appear to be nonsense, each letter denotes a specific value and provides information on the vulnerability. The acronyms are as follows:

  • CVSS 3.1 designates the scoring system in use
  • AV (Attack Vector): Describes how an attacker can exploit the vulnerability (e.g., local, adjacent network, or network)
  • AC (Attack Complexity): Reflects how difficult it is to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., low, medium, or high)
  • PR (Privileges Required): Indicates the level of privileges an attacker needs to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., none, low, or high)
  • UI (User Interaction): Specifies whether user interaction is required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., none, required)
  • S (Scope): Determines whether exploitation of the vulnerability impacts components beyond the vulnerable component

The final three letters make up what is known as the ‘Security Triad’ or ‘CIA’ (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability).

  • C (Confidentiality): A measure of how this vulnerability potentially impacts the privacy of end user data (Asks ‘Can a threat actor access data for which they are not authorized?’)
  • I (Integrity): A measure of how this vulnerability potentially impacts the reliability of data in the victim’s environment (Asks ‘Can a threat actor change or tamper any data?)
  • A (Availability): A measure of how this vulnerability potentially impacts the ability to access data and services (Asks ‘Can a threat actor destroy data or take down services?)

These are known as the Base Metrics. The base metrics are then scored based on the vulnerability, as seen below:

Attack Vector (AV): This metric reflects how the vulnerability is exploited

  • N (Network): The vulnerability is exploitable from remote locations
  • A (Adjacent Network): The vulnerability is exploitable from an adjacent network
  • L (Local): The vulnerability is exploitable locally
  • P (Physical): The vulnerability requires physical access to exploit

Attack Complexity (AC): This metric describes the conditions that must be met by the attacker to exploit the vulnerability

  • L (Low): The attack is straightforward without special conditions
  • H (High): The attack requires specific conditions that are beyond the attacker’s control

Privileges Required (PR): This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

  • N (None): No privileges are required
  • L (Low): The attacker needs basic user privileges
  • H (High): The attacker needs high privileges, such as administrative or root access

User Interaction (UI): This metric captures whether the vulnerability requires user interaction to be exploited.

  • N (None): No user interaction is required
  • R (Required): Exploitation requires user interaction

Scope (S): This metric describes whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

  • U (Unchanged): The impact is limited to the vulnerable component
  • C (Changed): The impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component

Confidentiality (C): This metric measures the impact on the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

    • H (High): A total loss of confidentiality
    • L (Low): Some loss of confidentiality
    • N (None): No impact on confidentiality

Integrity (I): This metric measures the impact on the integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

  • H (High): A total loss of integrity
  • L (Low): Some loss of integrity
  • N (None): No impact on integrity

Availability (A): This metric measures the impact on the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

  • H (High): A total loss of availability
  • L (Low): Some loss of availability
  • N (None): No impact on availability

By analyzing our original CVSS string, we can get a clear picture of exactly what makes this vulnerability so dangerous:

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

 

AV (Attack Vector): N (Network)

  • AV: Indicates how the vulnerability is exploited
  • N (Network): The vulnerability can be exploited remotely over a network (from any location)

AC (Attack Complexity): L (Low)

  • AC: Describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist to exploit the vulnerability
  • L (Low): The attack does not require any special conditions, meaning it is straightforward to execute

PR (Privileges Required): N (None)

  • PR: Describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability
  • N (None): The attacker does not require any privileges to exploit the vulnerability

UI (User Interaction): N (None)

  • UI: Captures whether the vulnerability requires user interaction to be exploited
  • N (None): The vulnerability can be exploited without any user interaction

S (Scope): U (Unchanged)

  • S: Indicates whether a successful exploit of the vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope of the vulnerable component
  • U (Unchanged): A successful attack only impacts resources that are within the same security scope

C (Confidentiality): H (High)

  • C: Measures the impact on the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability
  • H (High): There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being compromised

I (Integrity): H (High)

  • I: Measures the impact on the integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability
  • H (High): There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete compromise of the system integrity

A (Availability): H (High)

    • A: Measures the impact on the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability
    • H (High): There is a total loss of availability, rendering the component completely unavailable
Vendor Patch Advisories

Various companies have recommended critical patches for common software this month. Some of the most notable can be seen below:

Advanced deploys patches to all environments as a priority following a testing phase. The criticality of security updates is determined by several factors, primarily the ease of exploitability by threat actors and if the vulnerability has been exploited in the wild. Please reach out to [email protected] with any questions, comments or concerns on your patch management.

Apple Updates
TeamViewer Reports Breach by Advanced Persistent Threat Actors
  • TeamViewer reported a breach in its corporate environment detected on June 26, 2024
  • A cybersecurity firm claims the breach was conducted by an APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) hacking group
  • The company activated its response team, initiated investigations with cybersecurity experts, and implemented remediation measures
  • TeamViewer clarified that its internal corporate IT environment is separate from its product environment
  • There is no evidence suggesting the product environment or customer data was affected
  • Investigations are ongoing, and TeamViewer’s primary focus is maintaining the integrity of their systems
  • TeamViewer plans to be transparent about the breach and will update the investigation status as more information becomes available
  • Despite claims of transparency, the “TeamViewer IT security update” page has a “noindex” tag, making it hard to find via search engines
  • TeamViewer’s software is widely used, with over 640,000 customers and installations on over 2.5 billion devices
  • The 2016 breach linked to Chinese threat actors was not disclosed at the time as no data was stolen
  • News of the recent breach was reported by IT security professional Jeffrey on Mastodon, referencing alerts from the Dutch Digital Trust Center and NCC Group
  • NCC Group alerted customers about the compromise of TeamViewer by an APT group due to its widespread usage
  • Health-ISAC also warned of active targeting of TeamViewer services by the Russian hacking group APT29
  • APT29, linked to Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, is known for cyberespionage and recent attacks on Western diplomats and Microsoft
  • It is unclear if the alerts from NCC Group and Health-ISAC are linked, as they address different aspects of the breach
Snowflake Breach Sends Ripples Through Various Markets
  • A hack against customers of the cloud storage company Snowflake looks like it may turn into one of the biggest-ever data breaches
  • A joint investigation by SnowFlake, Mandiant, and CrowdStrike revealed that a threat actor, tracked as UNC5537, used stolen customer credentials to target at least 165 organizations that had not configured multi-factor authentication protection on their accounts
  • Companies such as Ticketmaster, Santander, Advance Auto Parts, and Neiman Marcus have filed 8-K forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission, reporting the exposure of customer data
  • According to cybersecurity firm Hudson Rock, the threat actor claimed they also gained access to data from other high-profile companies using Snowflake’s cloud storage services, including Anheuser-Busch, State Farm, Mitsubishi, Progressive, and Allstate
  •  Hudson Rock added that a Snowflake employee was infected by a Lumma-type Infostealer in October. The malware stole their corporate credentials to Snowflake infrastructure, as seen in a screenshot shared by the threat actor and embedded below

Advanced Computer Technologies - Security Digest (July 2024)

  • A timeline of the intrusion generated by Mandiant shows persistent threat actor access as far back as April 14th

Advanced Computer Technologies - Security Digest (July 2024)

  • The threat actor, identified by username Sp1d3r, also put leaked data for sale on hacker forums following Neiman Marcus’ refusal to pay the requested bounty

Advanced Computer Technologies - Security Digest (July 2024)

  • Snowflake reports that the compromise is not due to faults or misconfigurations within their infrastructure, but with end user account security. ACT encourages all clients with cloud based accounts to enforce Multi-Factor Authentication to protect themselves from a breach.

Recent Posts

Security Digest (January 2025)

January 2025 January Patch Tuesday Review Vendor Patch Review Apple Updates Case Study: NTLM, Kerberos And The Future Of Localized Authentication 2024 Review: Healthcare’s Busiest

Read More »

Security Digest (June 2024)

July 2024 Patch Tuesday – 6/11 Deep Dive: CVSS Breakdown On Critical Vulnerability Vendor Patch Advisories Apple Updates TeamViewer Compromise Snowflake Breach Snowballs As always, Advanced

Read More »

Security Digest (May 2024)

May 2024 Patch Tuesday – 5/14 Threat Grading Overview Vendor Patch Advisories Threat Breakdown: The Return of Revenge Remote Access Trojan Looking Back: WannaCry –

Read More »

Cybersecurity Triad

New cyber threats are emerging every day, keeping us on our toes. Let’s talk about some of these threats, including credential stuffing, password spraying, and

Read More »

Categories