The Twelve Days of Christmas Packet Challenge
I've had many requests for more packet challenges. Its great to see folks enjoying themselves and looking at packets!! In the spirit of the holiday season, I have a gift for every who enjoys packets.
Everyone should know the song "The twelve days of Christmas." Which goes "On the first day of christmas, my true love gave to me a partriage in a pear tree. On the second day of christmas, ........" (be glad you can't hear me singing it:>) I have crafted 12 packets. In the data portion these packets, you will find obfuscated data that will tell you what you can get from the handlers this holiday season. They were written in the context of being an incident handler. I'm not meaning that we want to send bad things your way:>) Your challenge is to decode the data AND to order them in the correct order that the gifts should be received. The packets will tell you the correct ordering of the days if you spend some looking at them. I had alot of fun creating this challenge and I hope that everyone enjoys solving the puzzle. You can download the packets here.
I'll post the solution in the future when everyone has a chance to look at the packets. Good luck and send us your results when you figure it out!
Everyone should know the song "The twelve days of Christmas." Which goes "On the first day of christmas, my true love gave to me a partriage in a pear tree. On the second day of christmas, ........" (be glad you can't hear me singing it:>) I have crafted 12 packets. In the data portion these packets, you will find obfuscated data that will tell you what you can get from the handlers this holiday season. They were written in the context of being an incident handler. I'm not meaning that we want to send bad things your way:>) Your challenge is to decode the data AND to order them in the correct order that the gifts should be received. The packets will tell you the correct ordering of the days if you spend some looking at them. I had alot of fun creating this challenge and I hope that everyone enjoys solving the puzzle. You can download the packets here.
I'll post the solution in the future when everyone has a chance to look at the packets. Good luck and send us your results when you figure it out!
Keywords:
0 comment(s)
The missing Microsoft patches
Vulnerabilities that are widely known and/or actively exploited are of great interest to our readers, here we try to keep an overview of them
| Affected | Known Exploits | Impact | Known since |
ISC rating(*) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| clients | servers | ||||
| Microsoft DNS CVE-2007-1748 |
Exploit used in the wild Exploit code public |
Remote code execution with SYSTEM privileges |
April 4th, 2007 |
Less Urgent | Critical |
| Microsoft DNS offers RPC for remote management that is vulnerable to a stack overflow. See SA935964 for more mitigating information, KB935964 and VU#555920 and MSRC blog. |
|||||
| MSIE CVE-2007-1692 |
Exploit publicly discussed. | Malicious proxy insertion by insiders | Mar 25th, 2007 | Less Urgent | Less Urgent |
| Some mitigating steps are in KB934864: Setup wpad TXT records in all DNS domains and have the "wpad" and "wpad." names reserved on all WINS servers |
|||||
| Windows Vista - Windows Mail CVE-2007-1658 |
Exploit publicly available. | Execute programs through crafted URL | Mar 23th, 2007 | Less Urgent | Less Urgent |
| IE 7 CVE-2007-1499 |
Exploit publicly available. | XSS against local resource |
Mar 14th, 2007 | Less Urgent | Less Urgent |
| OLE object can crash windows explorer CVE-2007-1347 US-CERT VU#194944 |
Exploit publicly available. |
DoS (Memory corruption might lead to more) |
Mar 6th, 2007 |
Less Urgent |
Less Urgent |
| IE7 browser entrapment using onUnload() CVE-2007-1091 |
PoC publicly discussed. |
onUnload() and transitions can be used to fake a user backing out of a bad website while still interacting with it |
Feb 23th, 2007 variation of onUnload() trouble from Aug 2005 |
Less Urgent |
Less Urgent |
| IE7 browser involuntary file upload |
PoC publicly discussed. |
Focus can still be captured using javascript to capture keystrokes and use them to upload a file to a malicious website. |
Feb 12th, 2007 Variant of exploits dating back to Jun 2006. |
Important |
Less Urgent |
| Word 2000/XP unspecified problems CVE-2007-0870 |
Used in targeted attacks. |
Remote code execution, (originally only DoS) |
Feb 9th, 2007 |
Critical |
Important |
| Internet Explorer msxml3 concurrency problems CVE-2007-0099 |
Publicly posted exploit | DoS / code execution considered too difficult to control |
Jan 4th, 2007 |
Less Urgent |
Less Urgent |
| Patch unlikely, expect a fix in a SP or next version | |||||
| Workstation Service NetrWkstaUserEnum() memory allocation exhaustion in XP and 2000 CVE-2006-6723 |
Publicly posted exploit | DoS |
Dec 25th, 2006 |
Less Urgent |
Less Urgent |
| Patch unlikely, expect a fix in a SP Likely related to CVE-2006-6296 and CVE-2006-3644 see below |
|||||
| Microsoft Windows NAT Helper Components CVE-2006-5614 |
Publicly available exploit. |
DoS |
Oct 28th, 2006 |
Less Urgent |
Important |
| Patch unlikely, expect a fix in a SP | |||||
| PowerPoint 2003 CVE-2006-5296 |
MSRC blog #1 MSRC blog #2 Publicly available exploit. |
DoS |
Oct 20th, 2006 |
Less Urgent |
Less Urgent |
| Patch unlikely, Microsoft doesn't consider it a security problem anymore | |||||
| RPC memory allocation exhaustion in Windows 2000 SP4 via UPnP, SPOOLSS CVE-2006-6296 CVE-2006-3644 |
Multiple publicly available exploits. |
DoS |
Nov 16th, 2005 |
Less Urgent |
Important |
| Patch unlikely, expect a fix in a SP (if any) | |||||
(*): ISC rating
- We use 4 levels:
- PATCH NOW: Typically used where we see immediate danger of exploitation. Typical environments will want to deploy these patches ASAP. Workarounds are typically not accepted by users or are not possible. This rating is often used when typical deployments make it vulnerable and exploits are being used or easy to obtain or make.
- Critical: Anything that needs little to become "interesting" for the dark side. Best approach is to test and deploy ASAP. Workarounds can give more time to test.
- Important: Things where more testing and other measures can help.
- Less urgent: Typically we expect the impact if left unpatched to be not that big a deal in the short term. Do not forget them however.
- The difference between the client and server rating is based on how you use the affected machine. We take into account the typical client and server deployment in the usage of the machine and the common measures people typically have in place already. Measures we presume are simple best practices for servers such as not using outlook, MSIE, word etc. to do traditional office or leisure work.
- The rating is not a risk analysis as such. It is a rating of importance of the vulnerability and the perceived or even predicted threat for affected systems. The rating does not account for the number of affected systems there are. It is for an affected system in a typical worst-case role.
- Only the organization itself is in a position to do a full risk analysis involving the presence (or lack of) affected systems, the actually implemented measures, the impact on their operation and the value of the assets involved.
--
Swa Frantzen -- Section 66
Multiple vulnerabilities in Symantec Veritas NetBackup
Couple of days ago (thanks Melvin for reminding us about this) Symantec, together with ZDI, published an advisory about 3 new vulnerabilities in Veritas NetBackup server application. The vulnerability allows an attacker to remotely execute arbitrary code on a vulnerable installation.
In their advisory Symantec states that if Veritas NetBackup is properly configured that authentication will be required in order to exploit these vulnerabilities. They also state that connections should be accepted only from trusted hosts ? that is if you can trust your internal network. We also don't doubt that there are a lot of servers that do not require authentication of clients which makes them even more exposed to this.
The following versions of Veritas NetBackup are vulnerable:
Veritas NetBackup 6.0 < MP4
Veritas NetBackup 5.1 < MP6
Veritas NetBackup 5.0 < MP7
If you are affected, we would recommend that you visit the following web page: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/security/Content/2006.12.13a.html, where you can find the links to maintenance packs that patch this.
Looking at the original advisories by ZDI, it looks like they reported these vulnerabilities back in August to Symantec. This timing of releasing the patch for a remotely exploitable vulnerability just a week before the Christmas break is a bit weird ? this should have been done much earlier to give people the possibility of testing this business critical feature in everyone's organization. The last thing people want is to find out that their backup was not successful (or even worse - it was successful but the server has been compromised) when they return back to work after a nice Xmas break.
The only good thing is that, at this point in time, there seem to be no exploit for these vulnerabilities in the wild.
In their advisory Symantec states that if Veritas NetBackup is properly configured that authentication will be required in order to exploit these vulnerabilities. They also state that connections should be accepted only from trusted hosts ? that is if you can trust your internal network. We also don't doubt that there are a lot of servers that do not require authentication of clients which makes them even more exposed to this.
The following versions of Veritas NetBackup are vulnerable:
Veritas NetBackup 6.0 < MP4
Veritas NetBackup 5.1 < MP6
Veritas NetBackup 5.0 < MP7
If you are affected, we would recommend that you visit the following web page: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/security/Content/2006.12.13a.html, where you can find the links to maintenance packs that patch this.
Looking at the original advisories by ZDI, it looks like they reported these vulnerabilities back in August to Symantec. This timing of releasing the patch for a remotely exploitable vulnerability just a week before the Christmas break is a bit weird ? this should have been done much earlier to give people the possibility of testing this business critical feature in everyone's organization. The last thing people want is to find out that their backup was not successful (or even worse - it was successful but the server has been compromised) when they return back to work after a nice Xmas break.
The only good thing is that, at this point in time, there seem to be no exploit for these vulnerabilities in the wild.
Keywords:
0 comment(s)
×
![modal content]()
Diary Archives
© 2024 SANS™ Internet Storm Center
Developers: We have an API for you! 
Comments