Difference between revisions of "Top 10-2017 A9-Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities"

Latest revision as of 16:30, 5 December 2018

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If software is vulnerable, unsupported, or out of date.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 versions, DependencyCheck, 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 →

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Top_10_2013:TopTemplate
+    |useprev=2017PrevLink
+    |prev=A8-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
+        |8
+        |year=2017
+        |language=en
+    }}
      |usenext=2017NextLink
      |next=A10-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
-              |10
+        |10
-              |year=2017
+        |year=2017
-              |language=en}}
+        |language=en
-     |useprev=2017PrevLink
+     }}
-    |prev=A8-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
-              |8
-              |year=2017
-              |language=en}}
      |year=2017
      |language=en
 }}
+<!--- 2017 Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities --->
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderBeginTemplate|year=2017|language=en}}
- {{Top_10:SummaryTableTemplate|exploitability=2|prevalence=2|detectability=2|impact=2|year=2017|language=en}}
+{{Top_10-2017:SummaryTableTemplate|exploitability=2 |prevalence=3 |detectability=2 |impact=2 |year=2017|language=en}}
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderEndTemplate|year=2017}}
-     <td {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
+    <td colspan=2 {{Template:Top_10_2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
-<!--- Threat Agents: --->Some vulnerable components (e.g., framework libraries) can be identified and exploited with automated tools, expanding the threat agent pool beyond targeted attackers to include chaotic actors.
+<!--- Threat Agent: --->
-</td>
+While it is easy to find already-written exploits for many known vulnerabilities, other vulnerabilities require concentrated effort to develop a custom exploit. </td>
-     <td {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
+    <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top_10_2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
-<!--- Attack Vectors --->Attackers identify a weak component through scanning or manual analysis. They customize the exploit as needed and execute the attack. It gets more difficult if the used component is deep in the application.
+<!--- Security Weakness: --->
-</td>
+ 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.<br/>Some scanners such as retire.js help in detection, but determining exploitability requires additional effort. </td>
-     <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
+    <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top_10_2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
-<!--- Security Weakness --->Many applications and APIs have these issues because their development teams don’t focus on ensuring their components and libraries are up to date. In some cases, the developers don’t even know all the components they are using, never mind their versions. Component dependencies make things even worse. Tools are becoming commonly available to help detect components with known vulnerabilities.
+<!--- Impacts: --->
-</td>
+ 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. </td>
-     <td {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
-<!--- Technical Impacts --->The full range of weaknesses is possible, including injection, broken access control, XSS, etc. The impact could range from minimal to complete host takeover and data compromise.
-</td>
-     <td {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
-<!--- Business Impacts  --->Consider what each vulnerability might mean for the business controlled by the affected application. It could be trivial or it could mean complete compromise.
-</td>
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableEndTemplate|year=2017}}
-{{Top_10:SubsectionTableBeginTemplate|year=2017|type=main}} {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=vulnerableTo|position=firstLeft|risk=9|year=2017|language=en}}
+{{Top_10:SubsectionTableBeginTemplate|type=main}}
-The challenge is to continuously monitor the components (both client-side and server-side) you are using for new vulnerability reports. This monitoring can be very difficult because vulnerability reports are not standardized, making them hard to find and search for the details you need (e.g., the exact component in a product family that has the vulnerability). Worst of all, many vulnerabilities never get reported to central clearinghouses like <u>[https://cve.mitre.org/ CVE]</u> and <u>[https://nvd.nist.gov/ NVD]</u>.
+{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=isTheApplicationVulnerable|position=firstLeft|year=2017|language=en}}
+You are likely vulnerable:
-Determining if you are vulnerable requires searching these databases, as well as keeping abreast of project mailing lists and announcements for anything that might be a vulnerability. This process can be done manually, or with automated tools. If a vulnerability in a component is discovered, carefully evaluate whether you are actually vulnerable. Check to see if your code uses the vulnerable part of the component and whether the flaw could result in an impact you care about. Both checks can be difficult to perform as vulnerability reports can be deliberately vague.
+* 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.
-{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=howPrevent|position=right|risk=9|year=2017|language=en}}
+* If you do not scan for vulnerabilities regularly and subscribe to security bulletins related to the components you use.
-Most component projects do not create vulnerability patches for old versions. So the only way to fix the problem is to upgrade to the next version, which can require other code changes. Software projects should have a process in place to:
+* 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.
-# Continuously inventory the versions of both client-side and server-side components and their dependencies using tools like <u>[http://www.mojohaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/ versions]</u>, <u>[[OWASP_Dependency_Check|DependencyCheck]]</u>, <u>[https://github.com/retirejs/retire.js/ retire.js]</u>, etc.
+* If software developers do not test the compatibility of updated, upgraded, or patched libraries.
-# Continuously monitor sources like <u>[https://nvd.nist.gov NVD]</u> for vulnerabilities in your components. Use software composition analysis tools to automate the process.
+* If you do not secure the components' configurations (see <b><u>[[{{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=documentRootTop10New|language=en|year=2017 }}_A6-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers|6|year=2017|language=en}} | A6:2017-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers|6|year=2017|language=en}}]]</u></b>).
-# Analyze libraries to be sure they are actually invoked at runtime before making changes, as the majority of components are never loaded or invoked.
-# Decide whether to upgrade component (and rewrite application to match if needed) or deploy a <u>[[Virtual_Patching_Best_Practices#What_is_a_Virtual_Patch.3F|virtual patch]]</u> that analyzes HTTP traffic, data flow, or code execution and prevents vulnerabilities from being exploited.
-{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=example|position=left|risk=9|year=2017|language=en}}
+{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=howToPrevent|position=right|year=2017|language=en}}
-Components almost always run with the full privilege of the application, 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:
+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 <u>[http://www.mojohaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/ versions]</u>, <u>[[OWASP_Dependency_Check|DependencyCheck]]</u>, <u>[https://github.com/retirejs/retire.js/ retire.js]</u>, etc. Continuously monitor sources like <u>[https://cve.mitre.org/ CVE]</u> and <u>[https://nvd.nist.gov/ NVD]</u> 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 <u>[[Virtual_Patching_Best_Practices#What_is_a_Virtual_Patch.3F | virtual patch]]</u> 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.
-* <u>[https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-3451 Apache CXF Authentication Bypass]</u> – By failing to provide an identity token, attackers could invoke any web service with full permission. (Apache CXF is a services framework, not to be confused with the Apache Application Server.)
+{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=exampleAttackScenarios|position=left|year=2017|language=en}}
-* <u>[https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-5638 Struts 2 Remote Code Execution]</u> – Sending an attack in the Content-Type header causes the content of that header to be evaluated as an OGNL expression, which enables execution of arbitrary code on the server.
+<b>Scenario #1</b>: 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:
+* <u>[https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-5638 CVE-2017-5638]</u>, a Struts 2 remote code execution vulnerability that enables execution of arbitrary code on the server, has been blamed for significant breaches.
+* While <u>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_things internet of things (IoT)]</u> 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 <u>[https://www.shodan.io/report/89bnfUyJ Shodan IoT search engine]</u> can help you find devices that still suffer from <u>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed Heartbleed]</u> vulnerability that was patched in April 2014.
-Applications using a vulnerable version of either component are susceptible to attack as both components are directly accessible by application users. Other vulnerable libraries, used deeper in an application, may be harder to exploit.
+{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=references|position=right|year=2017|language=en}}
+{{Top_10_2010:SubSubsectionOWASPReferencesTemplate|year=2017|language=en}}
-{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=references|position=right|risk=9|year=2017|language=en}}
+* <u>[[ASVS_V1_Architecture|OWASP Application Security Verification Standard: V1 Architecture, design and threat modelling]]</u>
-{{Top_10_2010:SubSubsectionOWASPReferencesTemplate|year=2017}}
 * <u>[[OWASP_Dependency_Check|OWASP Dependency Check (for Java and .NET libraries)]]</u>
+* <u>[[Map_Application_Architecture_(OTG-INFO-010)|OWASP Testing Guide - Map Application Architecture (OTG-INFO-010)]]</u>
 * <u>[[Virtual_Patching_Best_Practices|OWASP Virtual Patching Best Practices]]</u>
 {{Top_10_2010:SubSubsectionExternalReferencesTemplate|year=2017|language=en}}
-* <u>[http://www.aspectsecurity.com/research-presentations/the-unfortunate-reality-of-insecure-libraries|The Unfortunate Reality of Insecure Libraries]</u>
+* <u>[https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/203759/file-1100864196-pdf/docs/Contrast_-_Insecure_Libraries_2014.pdf The Unfortunate Reality of Insecure Libraries]</u>
-* <u>[[Virtual_Patching_Best_Practices|MITRE Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) search]]</u>
+* <u>[https://www.cvedetails.com/version-search.php MITRE Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) search]</u>
 * <u>[https://nvd.nist.gov/ National Vulnerability Database (NVD)]</u>
 * <u>[https://github.com/retirejs/retire.js/ Retire.js for detecting known vulnerable JavaScript libraries]</u>
 * <u>[https://nodesecurity.io/advisories Node Libraries Security Advisories]</u>
 * <u>[https://rubysec.com/ Ruby Libraries Security Advisory Database and Tools]</u>
 {{Top_10_2013:BottomAdvancedTemplate
-     |type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}
+     |type=box
+    |useprev=2017PrevLink
+    |prev=A8-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
+        |8
+        |year=2017
+        |language=en
+    }}
      |usenext=2017NextLink
      |next=A10-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
-              |10
+        |10
-              |year=2017
+        |year=2017
-              |language=en}}
+        |language=en
-     |useprev=2017PrevLink
+     }}
-    |prev=A8-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
-              |8
-              |year=2017
-              |language=en}}
      |year=2017
      |language=en
 }}
+<!-- [[Category:OWASP Top Ten Project]] -->

Difference between revisions of "Top 10-2017 A9-Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities"

Latest revision as of 16:30, 5 December 2018

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Reference

Tools