Information Security *

For the past ten years, the open-source movement has been one of the key drivers of the IT industry's development, and its crucial component. The role of open-source projects is becoming more and more prominent not only in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality, which changes the very concept of how they are positioned on the IT market in general. Our courageous PVS-Studio team is not sitting idly and is taking an active part in strengthening the presence of open-source software by finding hidden bugs in the enormous depths of codebases and offering free license options to the authors of such projects. This article is just another piece of that activity! Today we are going to talk about Apache Hive. I've got the report — and there are things worth looking at.

In order to verify the quality of software, you have to use a lot of different tools, including static and dynamic analyzers. In this article, we'll try to figure out why only one type of analysis, whether static or dynamic, may not be enough for comprehensive software analysis and why it's preferable to use both.

Popularity of mobile applications continues to grow. So does OAuth 2.0 protocol on mobile apps. It's not enough to implement standard as is to make OAuth 2.0 protocol secure there. One needs to consider the specifics of mobile applications and apply some additional security mechanisms.

In this article, I want to share the concepts of mobile OAuth 2.0 attacks and security mechanisms used to prevent such issues. Described concepts are not new but there is a lack of the structured information on this topic. The main aim of the article is to fill this gap.

Hi everyone!

I like Tox and respect the participants of this project and their work. In an effort to help Tox developers and users, I looked into the code and noticed potential problems that could lead to a false sense of security. Since I originally published this article in 2016 (in Russian), many improvements have been made to Tox, and I lead a team that re-wrote secure Tox software from scratch using the Rust programming language (check out Tox-rs). I DO recommend using tox in 2019. Let's take a look what actually made us rewrite Tox in Rust.

Original article of 2016

There is an unhealthy tendency to overestimate the security of E2E systems only on the basis that they are E2E. I will present objective facts supplemented with my own comments for you to draw your own conclusions.

Spoiler: The Tox developers agree with my points and my source code pull request was accepted.

TL;DR: starting February 2020, DNS servers that don’t support DNS both over UDP and TCP may stop working.

Bangkok, in general, is a strange place to stay. Of course, it is warm there, rather cheap and some might find the cuisine interesting, along with the fact that about half of the world’s population does not need to apply for a visa in advance to get there. However, you still need to get acquainted with the smells, and the city streets are casting cyberpunk scenes more than anything else.

In particular, a photo to the left has been taken not far from the center of Thailand’ capital city, one street away from the Shangri-La hotel, where the 30th DNS-OARC organization meeting took place on May 12 and 13. It is a non-profit organization dedicated to security, stability, and overall development of the DNS — the Domain Name System.

Slides from the DNS-OARC 30 meeting are recommended for everyone interested in how the DNS works, though perhaps the most interesting is what is absent in those slides. Namely, a 45-minute round table with a discussion around the results of DNS Flag Day 2019, which occurred on February, 1, 2019.

And, the most impressive result of a round table is the decision to repeat DNS Flag Day once again.

Two days ago, May 5 of the year 2019 we saw a peculiar BGP outage, affecting autonomous systems in the customer cone of one very specific AS with the number 721.

Right at the beginning, we need to outline a couple of details for our readers:

1. All Autonomous System Numbers under 1000 are called “lower ASNs,” as they are the first autonomous systems on the Internet, registered by IANA in the early days (the late 80’s) of the global network. Today they mostly represent government departments and organizations, that were somehow involved in Internet research and creation in 70-90s.
2. Our readers should remember, that the Internet became public only after the United States’ Department of Defense, which funded the initial ARPANET, handed it over to the Defense Communication Agency and, later in 1981, connected it to the CSNET with the TCP (RFC675)/IP (RFC791) over X.25. A couple of years later, in 1986, NSF swapped the CSNET in favor of NSFNET, which grew so fast it made possible ARPANET decommission by 1990.
3. IANA was established in 1988, and supposedly at that time, existing ASNs were registered by the RIRs. It is no surprise that the organization that funded the initial research and creation of the ARPANET, further transferring it to another department because of its operational size and growth, only after diversifying it into 4 different networks (Wiki mentions MILNET, NIPRNET, SIPRNET and JWICS, above which the military-only NIPRNET did not have controlled security gateways to the public Internet).

As we wrote in the 2018-2019 Interconnected Networks Issues and Availability Report at the beginning of this year, TLS 1.3 arrival is inevitable. Some time ago we successfully deployed the 1.3 version of the Transport Layer Security protocol. After gathering and analyzing the data, we are now ready to highlight the most exciting parts of this transition.

As IETF TLS Working Group Chairs wrote in the article:
“In short, TLS 1.3 is poised to provide a foundation for a more secure and efficient Internet over the next 20 years and beyond.”

TLS 1.3 has arrived after 10 years of development. Qrator Labs, as well as the IT industry overall, watched the development process closely from the initial draft through each of the 28 versions while a balanced and manageable protocol was maturing that we are ready to support in 2019. The support is already evident among the market, and we want to keep pace in implementing this robust, proven security protocol.

Eric Rescorla, the lone author of TLS 1.3 and the Firefox CTO, told The Register that:
“It's a drop-in replacement for TLS 1.2, uses the same keys and certificates, and clients and servers can automatically negotiate TLS 1.3 when they both support it,” he said. “There's pretty good library support already, and Chrome and Firefox both have TLS 1.3 on by default.”

In this article, we're going to talk about not the classical AFL itself but about utilities designed for it and its modifications, which, in our view, can significantly improve the quality of fuzzing. If you want to know how to boost AFL and how to find more vulnerabilities faster – keep on reading!

OAuth 2 overview

This article assumes that readers are familiar with OAuth 2. However, below a brief description of it is presented below.

1. The application requests authorization to access service resources from the user. The application needs to provide the client ID, client secret, redirect URI and the required scopes.
2. If the user authorizes the request, the application receives an authorization grant
3. The application requests an access token from the authorization server by presenting authentication of its own identity, and the authorization grant
4. If the application identity is authenticated and the authorization grant is valid, the authorization server issues the access and refresh (if required) token to the application. Authorization is complete.
5. The application requests the resource from the resource server and presents the access token for authentication
6. If the access token is valid, the resource server serves the resource to the application

The are some main Pros and Cons in OAuth 2.0

• OAuth 2.0 is easier to use and implement (compared to OAuth 1.0)
• Wide spread and continuing growing
• Short lived Tokens
• Encapsulated Tokens

— No signature (relies solely on SSL/TLS ), Bearer Tokens
— No built-in security
— Can be dangerous if used from not experienced people
— Too many compromises. Working group did not make clear decisions
— Mobile integration (web views)
— Oauth 2.0 spec is not a protocol, it is rather a framework — RFC 6749

If you use Habr, chances are, you’re conscious about privacy on the web. As governments and corporations tighten their grip on people’s online activities, the issue of keeping your browsing data to yourself becomes more and more relevant.

Numerous tech websites say VPN is no longer a geek-only thing, and regular people should use it, too (Fast Company, Mashable, PCMag). But as a tech-savvy person, you know there isn’t a service you can trust as much as the one you host and manage yourself.

With this post, you’ll deploy your own instance of Outline VPN on AWS.

On March 13, a proposal for the RIPE anti-abuse working group was submitted, stating that a BGP hijacking event should be treated as a policy violation. In case of acceptance, if you are an ISP attacked with the hijack, you could submit a special request where you might expose such an autonomous system. If there is enough confirming evidence for an expert group, then such a LIR would be considered an adverse party and further punished. There were some arguments against this proposal.

With this article, we want to show an example of the attack where not only the true attacker was under the question, but the whole list of affected prefixes. Moreover, it again raises concerns about the possible motives for the future attack of this type.

It was an ordinary Thursday on 4.04.2019. Except that at some point of the midday timeline an AS60280 belonging to Belarus’ NTEC leaked 18600 prefixes originating from approximately 1400 ASes.

Those routes were taken from the transit provider RETN (AS9002) and further announced to NTEC’s provider — RU-telecom’s AS205540, which, in its turn, accepted all of them, spreading the leak.

Wireshark Foundation released the final stable-version of the popular network traffic analyzer — Wireshark 3.0.0. The new release fixes several bugs, it is now possible to analyze the new protocols, apart from that the driver on Npcap WinPcap is replaced. Here is where quoting of the announcement ends and our note about bugs in the project starts off. The projects authors definitely haven't done their best in fixing bugs before the release.

Let's collect hotfixes right now to give a motive in doing a new release :).

Introduction

Wireshark is a well-known tool to capture and analyze network traffic. The program works with the vast majority of known protocols, has intuitive and logical graphical interface, an all-powerful system of filters. Wireshark is cross-platform, works in such OSs, as: Windows, Linux, macOS, Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD and many others.

To do the source code analysis, we used PVS-Studio static code analyzer. To analyze the source code, first we needed to compile the project in an OS. The choice was wide not only due to the cross platform nature of the project, but also because of that of the analyzer. I chose macOS for the analysis. You can also run the analyzer under Windows and Linux.

Web application firewall

Web application firewalls (WAFs) are a type of intrusion detection and prevention system and might be either a hardware or software solution. It is specifically designed to inspect HTTP(s) and analyse the GET and POST requests using the appalling detection logic explained below. Web application firewall software is generally available as a web server plugin.

WAF has become extremely popular and various companies offer a variety of solutions in different price categories, from small businesses to large corporations. Modern WAF is popular because it has a wide range of covered tasks, so web application developers can rely on it for various security issues, but with the assumption that this solution cannot guarantee absolute protection. A basic WAF workflow is shown below.



Its main function is the detection and blocking of queries in which, according to WAF analysis, there are some anomalies, or an attacking vector is traced. Such an analysis should not make it difficult for legitimate users to interact with a web application, but, at the same time, it must accurately and timely detect any attempted attack. In order to implement this functionality, WAF developers usually use regular expressions, tokens, behavioural analysis, reputation analysis and machine learning, and, often, all these technologies are used together.



In addition, WAF can also provide other functionality: protection from DDoS, blocking of IP-addresses of attackers, tracking of suspicious IP-addresses, adding an HTTP-only flag to the cookie, or adding the functionality of CSRF-tokens. Each WAF is individual and has a unique internal arrangement, but there are some typical methods used for analysis.

^{Source: The online counterfeit economy: consumer electronics, a report made by CSC in 2017}

Over the past 10 years, the number of fake goods in the world has doubled. This data has been published in the latest Year-End Intellectual Property Rights Review by the US Department of Homeland Security in 2016 (the most current year tracked). A lot of the counterfeiting comes from China (56%), Hong Kong (36%) and Singapore (2%). The manufacturers of original goods suffer serious losses, some of which occur on the electronics market.

Many modern products contain electronic components: clothes, shoes, watches, jewellery, cars.
Last year, direct losses from the illegal copying of consumer electronics and electronic components in the composition of other goods were about $0.5 trillion.

How to solve this problem?

Русская версия этой статьи.
Modern PC motherboards' firmware follow UEFI specification since 2010. In 2013, a new technology called Secure Boot appeared, intended to prevent bootkits from being installed and run. Secure Boot prevents the execution of unsigned or untrusted program code (.efi programs and operating system boot loaders, additional hardware firmware like video card and network adapter OPROMs).
Secure Boot can be disabled on any retail motherboard, but a mandatory requirement for changing its state is physical presence of the user at the computer. It is necessary to enter UEFI settings when the computer boots, and only then it's possible to change Secure Boot settings.

Most motherboards include only Microsoft keys as trusted, which forces bootable software vendors to ask Microsoft to sign their bootloaders. This process include code audit procedure and justification for the need to sign their file with globally trusted key if they want the disk or USB flash to work in Secure Boot mode without adding their key on each computer manually.
Linux distributions, hypervisors, antivirus boot disks, computer recovery software authors all have to sign their bootloaders in Microsoft.

I wanted to make a bootable USB flash drive with various computer recovery software that would boot without disabling Secure Boot. Let's see how this can be achieved.

First of all let's remember a standart group policy precedence: Local — Site — Domain — Organisation Unit (LSDOU). From less specific level to more specific. It means that Local GPO settings will apply first, then Site-level, Domain-level etc. And the last applied (OU GPO) settings have the highest precedence on the resulting system. However, if a domain administrator didn't set some settings in the higher-level GPOs (e.g. Enable/Disable Windows Defender service) but the same settings have been configured on the Local-level GPO — the last ones will be apply. Yes, even the machine is a domain member.

The Local GPO files are located in %systemroot%\System32\GroupPolicy hidden folder and, of course, it has two scopes (located in subfolders): for User and for Computer. Any user (here I mean a «bad guy» of course), having access to this folder(s), can copy a Registry.pol file and check/change a Local GPO settings. An intruder can use a third-part apllication, such as a RegPol Viewer:

A completely routine tech support ticket has uncovered unexpected bans of IP addresses of Protonmail — a very useful service for people valuing their Internet freedoms — in several regions of Russia. I seriously didn’t want to sensationalize the headline, but the story is so strange and inexplicable I couldn’t resist.

TL;DR

Disclaimer: the situation is still developing. There might not be anything malicious, but most likely there is. I will update the post once new information comes through.

MTS and Rostelecom — two of the biggest Russian ISPs — started to block traffic to SMTP servers of the encrypted email service Protonmail according to an FSB request, with no regard for the official government registry of restricted websites. It seems like it’s been happening for a while, but no one paid special attention to it. Until now.

All involved parties have received relevant requests for information which they’re obligated to reply.

UPD: MTS has provided a scan of the FSB letter, which is the basis for restricting the access. Justification: the ongoing Universiade in Krasnoyarsk and “phone terrorism”. It’s supposed to prevent ProtonMail emails from going to emergency addresses of security services and schools.

UPD: Protonmail was surprised by “these strange Russians” and their methods for battling fraud abuse, as well as suggested a more effective way to do it — via abuse mailbox.

UPD: FSB’s justification doesn’t appear to be true: the bans broke ProtonMail’s incoming mail, rather than outgoing.

UPD: Protonmail shrugged and changed the IP addresses of their MXs taking them out of the blocking after that particular FSB letter. What will happen next is open ended question.

UPD: Apparently, such letter was not the only one and there is still a set of IP addresses of VOIP-services which are blocked without appropriate records in the official registry of restricted websites.

This week, NSA (National Security Agency) all of a sudden made a gift to humanity, opening sources of their software reverse engineering framework. Community of the reverse engineers and security experts with great enthusiasm started to explore the new toy. According to the feedback, it’s really amazing tool, able to compete with existing solutions, such as IDA Pro, R2 and JEB. The tool is called Ghidra and professional resources are full of impressions from researchers. Actually, they had a good reason: not every day government organizations provide access to their internal tools. Myself as a professional reverse engineer and malware analyst couldn’t pass by as well. I decided to spend a weekend or two and get a first impression of the tool. I had played a bit with disassembly and decided to check extensibility of the tool. In this series of articles, I'll explain the development of Ghidra add-on, which loads custom format, used to solve CTF task. As it’s a large framework and I've chosen quite complicated task, I’ll break the article into several parts.

By the end of this part I hope to setup development environment and build minimal module, which will be able to recognize format of the WebAssembly file and will suggest the right disassembler to process it.

In this report, Bitfury shares analysis completed by its Crystal Blockchain Analytics engineering team on the movement of bitcoin from the Zaif exchange, Bithumb exchange and Electrum wallets.